Columbia  ^^uiber^it;> 
mtbfdrttpof^ftogark 

LI  B R A RY 


THE  SELIGMAN  LIBRARY  OF  ECONOMICS 
PURCHASED  BY  THE  LnSTIVERSITY 


1929 


DUKE 

UNIVERSITY 


LIBRARY 


THE 

n 


CLOAK  MAKERS’  STRIKE 


ISSUED  BY 


THE  ^OAK,  SUIT  AND  SKIRT  MANUFACTURERS’ 
PROTECTIVE  ASSOCIATION 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2016 


https://archive.org/details/cloakmakersstrik01cloa 


MANUFACTURERS’  APPEAL  TO  THE  PUBLIC. 


TO  THE  PUBLIC : 


New  York,  July  11,  1910. 


d 


One  of  the  most  important  industries  in  our  countr}'  is  the  manufacture  of  ladies’  and 
misses’  garments,  in  which  are  employed  over  one  hundred  and  twenty-five  thousand  people. 
The  production  in  the  United  States  is  about  two  hundred  and  fifty  million  dollars,  of 
which  one  hundred  and  eighty  million  is  produced  in  New  York  City.  Many  millions  of 
dollars  are  invested.  Many  employers  have  by  diligence  risen  rom  the  ranks.  We  challenge 
inspection  of  our  shops  for  any  evidence  of  unsanitary  conditions.  We  believe  our  em- 
ployees are  well  paid  and  well  treated.  Wages  have  increased  proportionately  with  other  in 
dustries,  and  even  in  spite  of  unfavorable  business  conditions  we  are  willing  to  adjust  any 
diflferences  that  may  exist  as  to  wages. 

We  ask  for  nothing  but  fair  play.  If  there  be  grievances  between  any  shop  employer 
and  the  workers  in  his  shop,  we  do  not  see  why  they  cannot  be  adjusted  without  resorting  to 
a general  strike.  Why  those  who  have  earnestly  striven  to  make  their  shops  sanitary,  and 
their  employees  satisfied,  should  suffer  for  those  who  lag  behind  we  cannot  comprehend. 
But  if  there  be  grievances,  we  will  undertake  to  use  our  efforts  toward  securing  the  redress 
of  them. 

Without  complaint,  without  submitting  any  grievances,  our  employees  have  left  their 
posts  by  order  of  their  Union.  Loyalty  to  the  Lmion  has  led  many  to  forget  their  loyalty  to 
us.  But  in  the  main,  fear  of  ostracism  and  the  threat  of  violence  has  led  many  employees  to 
leave  their  positions  for  idleness,  and,  we  fear,  in  many  instances,  misery.  For  what  reason 
these  orders  have  been  given  we  have  yet  to  learn.  If  it  be  to  begin  an  organized  effort  to 
control  our  business,  to  dictate  the  running  of  our  shops,  to  exclude  those  who  do  not  care  to 
join  a union  from  earning  an  honest  livelihood,  then  we  fear  the  fight  is  to  be  a bitter  and 
long  one.  For  to  surrender  is  to  surrender  our  own  independence  and  the  independence 
of  those  who  wish  to  remain  independent  of  union  dictation.  We  are  quite  prepared  to  go 
down  in  ruin  if  we  are  to  accept  as  the  only  alternative  rule  of  our  factories  by  the  union. 

We  do  not  mean  by  this  that  we  shall  exclude  union  labor  from  our  shops.  We  pro- 
pose, however,  to  employ  our  operatives  for  their  ability,  regardless  of  their  affiliation  with 
the  union. 

We  believe  we  can  man  our  factories  with  employees  who  are  satisfied  with  their  situa- 
tions and  with  others  who  are  anxious  and  ready  to  work.  The  law  gives  us  this  right — gives 
them  the  right  to  earn  their  living  without  interference,  just  as  it  gives  our  employees  the 
right  to  strike  if  they  care  to.  We  note  the  word  of  caution  given  to  the  strikers  to  refrain 
from  violence.  We  hope  they  will  heed  it.  But  the  riot  this  morning  on  West  26th  street, 
we  fear,  does  not  show  that  they  have  taken  the  warning  to  heart.  In  past  strikes  in  our 
trade,  to  quote  from  the  language  of  a Supreme  Court  Justice : 

“Methods  have  been  used  that  are  un-American,  intolerable,  and  abhor- 
rent to  all  idea  of  personal  liberty,  and  in  defiance  of  the  right  of  the  individuals 
to  determine  for  himself  under  what  conditions  he  prefers  to  labor.’’  ^ 

We  hope  no  such  methods  will  be  used  in  this  strike.  If  they  are  not  used  we  are  confi- 
dent of  the  outcome. 

We  believe  each  shop  can  adjust  its  legitimate  grievances,  and  that  the  general  strike 
will  fall  of  its  own  weight.  We  shall  endeavor  to  protect  our  property,  and  to  protect  those 
of  our  workmen  who  desire  to  remain  at  work.  We  expect  in  this  co-operation  of  the  officers 
of  the  law  and  the  public.  We  have  given  pledge  ourselves  to  observe  the  law,  and  will 
discipline  rigorously  any  member  of  our  organization  who  violates  it. 

All  that  we  ask  is  that  there  be  a fair  discussion  of  any  grievances  that  may  exist,  that 
we  be  not  called  upon  to  surrender  our  factories  to  outside  management,  and  that  peace  and 
order  prevail  while  the  strike  is  on. 

The  Cloak,  Suit  and  Skirt  Manufacturers 
Protective  As.sociation. 


626874 


1 


I 


THE  DEMAND  OF  THE  UNION. 

INTERNATIONAL  LADIES'  GARMENT  WORKERS’  UNION. 

AFFILIATED  WITH  THE  AMERICAN  FEDERATION  OF  LABOR. 

11  WAVERLY  PLACE 

ABRAHAM  ROSENBERG,  JOHN  A.  DYCHE, 


GENERAL  PRESIDENT  GENERAL  SEC.-TREAS. 

New  York,  N.  Y.,  July  5th,  1910. 


« 


GENTLEMEN 

Enclosed  you  will  find  a copy  of  agreement  embodying  the  demands  of  the  Cloak  and 
Skirt  Makers’  Union  of  New  York. 

Our  settlement  headquarters  are  at  Hotel  Victoria,  Eifth  Avenue  and  27th  Street, 
( Room  228)  Tel.  1690  Madison  Sq. 

Very  truly  yours, 

ALEXANDER  BLOCH. 

Chairman  Settlement  Committee. 


2 


with 

The  Joint  Board  of  the 
Cloak  and  Skirt  Makers’  Unions 
of  New  York 


AGREEMENT 


MEMORANDUM  OF  AGREEMENT  made  by  and 
between 

composing  the  Firm  of 
having  its  business  at 

in  the  Borough  of  Manhattan,  City  of  New  York,  party 
of  the  first  part,  hereinafter  called  the  Firm,  and  THE 
JOINT  BOARD  of  the  CLOAK  AND  SKIRT  MAK- 
ERS’ UNIONS  as  attorney-in-fact  for  the  following 
Locals  of  the  INTERNATIONAL  LADIES’  GAR- 
MENT WORKERS’  UNION,  namely:  Cloak  Operators’ 
Union,  No.  1 ; Cloak  and  Suit  Tailors,  No.  9 ; Amal- 
gamated Ladies’  Garment  Cutters’  Association,  No.  10; 
Cloak  and  Skirt  Makers’  Union,  of  Brownsville,  No.  11; 
New  York  Reefer  Makers’  Union,  No.  17 ; Skirt  Makers’ 
Union,  No.  23 ; Cloak  and  Skirt  Pressers’  Lhiion,  No.  35 ; 
Button-Hole  Makers’  Union,  of  New  York,  Local  No. 
64;  Cloak  and  Suit  Pressers  of  Brownsville,  No.  68, 
party  of  the  second  part,  hereinafter  called  the  Union, 
to  wit: 

In  consideration  of  the  sum  of  One  ($1.00)  Dollar, 
each  to  the  other  in  hand  paid  before  the  signing  of  this 
agreement,  and  in  consideration  of  the  mutual  promises 
herein  made,  the  parties  hereto  agree  as  follows: 

I.  The  said  Firm  hereby  engages  the  Union  to  per- 
form all  the  tailoring,  operating,  pressing,  finishing,  cut- 
ting and  button-hole  making  work  required  to  be  done 
by  the  Firm  in  its  cloak  and  suit  business,  during  the 
period  commencing  with  the  date  of  this  agreement  and 
terminating  one  year  from  date,  and  the  Union  agrees  to 
perform  said  work  in  a good  and  workmanlike  manner. 

H.  During  the  continuance  of  this  agreement,  op- 
erators shall  be  paid  in  accordance  with  the  annexed  price 
list.  The  finishers  shall  be  paid 

The  following  is  the  scale  of  wages  for  week  hands : 

Cutters  not  less  than  $26.00  per  week. 

Skirt  cutters  not  less  than  $22.00  per  week. 

Jacket  pressers  not  less  than  $22.00  per  week. 

Under  pressers  not  less  than  $18.00  per  week. 

Skirt  pressers  not  less  than  $20.00  per  week. 

Skirt  under  pressers  not  less  than  $16.00  per  week. 

626874  ^ 


Piece  pressers  not  less  than  $14.00  per  week. 

Reefer  pressers  not  less  than  $18.00  per  week. 

Reefer  under  pressers  not  less  than  $14.00  per  week. 

Sample  makers  not  less  than  $24.00  per  week. 

Skirt  makers  not  less  than  $24.00  per  week. 

Skirt  basters  not  less  than  $15.00  per  week. 

Skirt  finishers  not  less  than  $12.00  per  week. 

Button-hole  makers  not  less  than  $1.10  per  hundred 
button-holes. 

III.  A working  week  shall  consist  of  48  hours  in  six 
working  days. 

The  following  shall  be  the  regular  hours  of  labor: 
On  the  first  five  working  days  of  the  week,  from  8 A.  M. 
to  12  noon,  from  12:45  P.  M.  to  5:30  P.  M.  Saturday, 
from  8 A.  M.  to  12:15  P.  M. 

IV.  No  overtime  work  shall  be  permitted  between 
the  15th  day  of  November  and  the  15th  day  of  January, 
and  during  the  months  of  June  and  July.  During  the  rest 
of  the  year  employees  may  be  required  to  work  overtime 
provided  all  employees  of  the  firm,  as  well  as  all  the  em- 
ployees of  the  outside  contractors  of  the  firm,  are  en- 
gaged to  the  full  capacity  of  the  factories.  No  overtime 
work  shall  be  permitted  on  Saturday  nor  on  any  day  for 
more  than  two  and  a half  hours,  nor  before  8 A.  M.  or 
after  8 P.  M.  For  overtime  work  the  employee  shall  re- 
ceive double  the  usual  pay. 

V.  No  contracting  or  sub-contracting  shall  be  per- 
mitted by  the  firm  inside  of  its  factory,  and  no  operator 
or  finisher  shall  employ  more  than  one  helper. 

VI.  No  sub-division  or  section  work  shall  be  per- 
mitted in  operating  or  finishing. 

VII.  No  employee  shall  be  required  to  work  on  any 
of  the  ten  legal  holidays.  All  legal  holidays  shall  be 
paid  for.  The  refraining  from  work  on  the  first  of  May 
celebration  shall  not  be  considered  a breach  of  this 
contract. 

VIII.  The  firm  is  to  furnish  to  all  employees,  free  of 
charge,  sewing  machines  driven  by  electric  power,  which 
are  to  be  in  charge  of  competent  machinists,  and  all 
requisites  for  work,  such  as  needles,  cotton,  silk,  oil, 
straps,  etc. 

IX.  The  firm  may  employ  outside  contractors,  pro- 
vided the  contractors  employ  members  of  the  Union. 
The  firm  agrees  to  pay  the  wages  of  any  and  all  of  the 
employees  of  its  contractors,  should  any  of  its  contractors 
fail  to  pay  said  wages  in  full. 

X.  Work  shall  be  distributed  equally  between  the  in- 
side employees  and  those  working  for  outside  contractors, 
and  equally  among  the  inside  employees  as  far  as 
practicable. 


4 


XL  At  the  commencement  of  the  season,  after  prices 
have  been  adjusted,  the  firm  shall  pay  to  its  employees 
the  difference  in  prices  for  work  on  new  styles  made 
prior  to  the  adjustment.  A shop  committee  shall,  to- 
gether with  the  firm,  adjust  prices  on  new  styles,  ref- 
erence to  be  had  to  previous  price  list. 

XII.  The  Union  shall  have  the  privilege  to  have  a 
shop  delegate  selected  by  the  persons  employed  in  the 
factory,  who  is  to  act  as  their  representative  in  their 
dealings  with  the  firm.  A duly  authorized  officer  or  rep- 
resentative of  the  Union  shall  have  free  access  to  the 
factory,  for  the  purpose  of  communicating  with  the  em- 
ployees. Such  visits  shall  not  interfere  with  or  disturb 
the  work  of  the  employees. 

XIII.  No  work  shall  be  given  to  employees  to  be 
done  at  their  homes. 

XIV.  The  Union  shall  be  credited  with  all  the  work 
performed  by  its  several  members,  and  payment  to  its 
members  shall  be  considered  payment  to  the  Union,  pro- 
vided payment  is  made  in  accordance  with  this  agreement. 

XV.  Only  members  of  the  respective  locals  above 
named  shall  be  employed  by  the  firm  to  do  the  said  work. 

XVI.  In  case  of  any  dispute,  there  shall  be  no  stop- 
page of  work  until  the  matter  in  dispute  shall  have  been 
settled  by  arbitration,  which  must  take  place  within  three 
days  after  the  arising  of  the  dispute. 

XVII.  Wages  shall  be  paid  in  cash,  to  piece  workers 
on  each  Monday  for  work  done  up  to  previous  Saturday, 
to  week  workers  on  Saturdays. 

XVIII.  The  firm  is  not  to  enter  into  individual  argee- 
ments  with  any  of  its  said  employees,  nor  shall  any  cash 
or  other  form  of  security  be  accepted  from  them. 

XIX.  Neither  the  firm,  nor  any  of  its  contractors, 
shall  require  any  of  its  employees  (nor  shall  any  em- 
ployee be  permitted)  to  do  work  on  orders  placed  by 
firms  or  contractors  whose  employees  are  on  strike  in 
the  City  of  New  York  or  elsewhere,  nor  shall  the  firm 
sell  any  goods  to  such  firms. 


5 


THE  PLEDGE  SIGNED  BY  EACH  MEMBER  OF  OUR  ASSOCIATION. 

(a)  That  to  the  utmost  of  his  ability,  with  the  assistance  of  the  Executive  Committee,  he 
will  endeavor  to  adjust  all  shop  grievances  his  employees  may  have ; 

(b)  That  if  unsanitary  conditions  in  his  factory  exist,  he  will,  to  the  utmost  of  his  ability, 
seek  to  improve  them ; 

(c)  That  he  will  not  join  or  enter  into  any  agreement  whatsoever  with  any  organization 
which  shall  directly  or  indirectly  involve  the  surrender  of  the  control  and  manage- 
ment of  his  factory  or  sub-factories  to  any  set  or  group  of  men,  whether  calling  them- 
selves a “union”  or  anything  else : 

(d)  That  he  will  zealously  endeavor  to  preserve  peace  in  the  continuance  of  his  business; 
and  join  with  other  members  similarly  situated  in  providing  protection  against  physi- 
cal violence  to  those  ready  and  willing  to  work  in  our  factories ; 

(e)  To  contribute  his  full  share  towards  the  expenses. 


6 


From  the  New  York  Times,  Saturday,  July  i6,  iqto. 


LIKE  THE  PADRONE  SYSTEM. 

According  to  the  Executive  Committee  of  the  Cloak,  Suit  and  Skirt  Manu- 
facturers’ Association,  the  employees  of  which  are  on  strike  for  higher  wages 
and  shorter  hours,  the  union  demands  the  signatures  of  the  employers  to  the 
following  proposed  agreement  before  the  employees  return  to  work ; 

The  said  firm  hereby  engages  the  union  to  perform  all  the  tailoring, 
operating,  pressing,  finishing',  cutting  and  buttonhole  making  work 
required  by  the  firm  commencing  with  the  date  of  this  agreement  and 
terminating  one  year  from  date,  and  the  union  agrees  to  perform  said 
work  in  a good  and  workmanlike  manner. 

The  union,  in  short,  is  the  padrone.  The  skilled  cloakmakers  are  to  be  as 
docile,  servile  and  lacking  in  individuality  as  any  gang  of  Italian  laborers, 
distinguished  from  each  other  by  numbers  instead  of  names.  The  pendulum 
of  labor  reform  seems  to  have  swung  full  circle. 

In  the  bad  old  days  the  employer  fixed  the  wage,  and  undoubtedly  he  fixed 
it  as  low  as  he  dared.  There  was  no  established  standard  for  any  kind  of 
employment.  Wages  were  a matter  of  higgling,  and  the  workman  was  com- 
pelled to  accept  what  he  could  get.  Nobody  doubts  the  beneficent  results  of 
the  organization  of  labor.  The  unions  were  a natural  growth  and  they  served 
a good  purpose.  Their  benevolent  intention  is  not  doubted  now.  But  the 
Cloakmakers’  Union  is  not  the  only  one  which  totally  suppresses  the  indi- 
viduality of  its  members.  It  is  the  “party  of  the  second  part”  in  their  con- 
tracts. It  orders  them  to  go  to  work,  or  to  cease  work,  at  its  own  will.  It 
forbids  recognition  of  any  individual  by  an  employer.  The  competent  must 
sustain  the  incompetent. 

The  union  will  agree  “to  perform  the  work  in  a good,  workmanlike  manner." 
The  workman  of  unusual  skill  gets  no  reward  other  than  that  of  the  one  of 
most  ordinary  ability.  The  proposed  agreement  of  the  Cloakmakers’  Union 
is  a reminder  of  the  padrone  system. 


7 


CORRESPONDENCE  WITH  STATE  BOARD  OF  ARBITRATION. 


State  of  New  York. 

Department  of  Labor 

Bureau  of  Mediation  and  Arbitration 

Albany, 


Sub-Office 

114  East  28th  Street 
N.  Y.  City 


Mr.  a.  E.  Lefcourt,  Chairman, 

The  Cloak,  Suit  and  Skirt  Manufacturers  Protective  Assn. 
Hoffman  House,  New  York  City. 

Dear  Sir  : 


July  15,  1910. 


I respectfully  submit  for  your  consideration  the  following  letter  received  by  me  from 
Hon.  John  Lundrigan,  Chairman,  New  York  State  Board  of  Meditation  and  Arbitration ; 

With  reference  to  the  strike  in  the  cloak  and  ladies’  suit  making  industry  now  existing  in 
the  Metropolitan  District,  a somewhat  superficial  investigation  leads  me  to  believe  that  this 
industry  is  practically  suspended  in  Greater  New  York  and  that  approximately  70,000  em- 
ployees are  idle  as  a result  thereof. 

I note  your  duplicate  letter  of  July  8th,  to  the  representatives  of  the  employers  and  the 
work  people  involved  in  which  you  recommend  that  a conference  committee  be  appointed.  I 
understand  that  this  time  that  no  reply  has  been  received  from  the  employers,  and  that  the 
reply  from  the  employees  simply  indicates  a willingness  to  confer  but  puts  the  responsibility 
for  arrangement  on  our  bureau. 

In  view  of  the  large  interests  involved  and  in  order  that  the  position  of  all  the  parties  be 
clearly  defined,  you  are  instructed  to  make  further  formal  request  that  a committee  (the 
smaller  the  number  the  better)  with  executive  power  be  selected  forthwith  by  each  of  the 
parties  involved,  i.  e. ; the  employers  generally,  and  the  employees  generally,  and  that  a joint 
meeting  of  such  committees  be  had,  not  later  than  Tuesday,  the  19th,  inst.,  for  the  purpose 
of  a general  discussion  of  the  questions  involved  in  this  dispute,  and  with  the  object  of  possibly 
affecting  a settlement. 

Advise  each  of  the  parties  that  this  Bureau  will  arrange  for  this  conference,  if  desired, 
and  will  be  represented  therein,  if  agreeable  to  each  of  the  participants. 

Also  request  answers  in  writing,  to  the  suggestions  and  recommendations  made  herein 
or  hereafter.  It  is  desired  that  you  reply  to  this  communication  in  writing,  at  your  earliest 
convenience. 

Very  truly  yours. 

Signed 

M.  J.  REAGAN, 

Industrial  IMeditator. 


8 


New  York,  July  15,  1910. 


M.  J.  Reagan,  Esq., 

Industrial  Mediator, 

Department  of  Labor, 

State  of  New  York. 

Dear  Sir:  Your  communication  under  date  of  the 

15th  of  July,  addressed  to  me  as  chairman  of  the  Cloak, 
Suit  & Skirt  Manufacturers’  Protective  Association, 
is  received.  It  seems  to  be  based  upon  misapprehen- 
sion. No  previous  suggestion  for  conference  has  been 
received  from  your  department  by  me  or  by  any  of- 
ficer of  this  association. 

At  the  present  time  we  have  no  definite  knowledge  of 
the  issues  involved  in  the  strike.  All  that  we  know  is 
that  our  workingmen  have  left  the  shops  and  are  on 
strike.  The  manufacturers  have  always  been  ready  to 
adjust  the  legitimate  grievances  of  any  of  their  em- 
ployees, and  the  attitude  of  the  employers  generally  is 
stated  in  the  appeal  to  the  public,  copy  of  which  we 
hand  you  herewith.  If  your  department  desires  to 
use  its  good  offices  in  the  interest  of  the  public,  it  is 
our  judgment  that  you  should  secure  from  the  em- 
ployees a statement  of  their  grievances.  We  assure 
you  and  the  public  that  if  any  of  these  grievances  be 
well-founded  we  stand  ready  to  adjust  them. 

The  pledge  of  our  members  contains  the  following, 
which  each  member  has  signed: 

“That  to  the  utmost  of  his  ability,  with  the  assistance 
of  the  Executive  Committee,  he  will  endeavor  to  ad- 
just all  shop  grievances  his  employees  may  have.” 

“That  if  unsanitary  conditions  in  his  factory  exists, 
he  will  to  the  utmost  of  his  ability  seek  to  improve 
them.” 

We  stand  ready  so  soon  as  you  can  secure  a state- 
ment of  any  of  these  grievances  to  participate  in  con- 
ference with  you  or  with  any  committee  representing 
our  employees  with  a view  to  securing  an  adjustment. 

We  deem  it  but  fair,  however,  that  we  should  call 
your  attention  immediately  to  one  of  the  limitations 
of  our  organization  which  every  member  of  our  associa- 
tion has  signed.  The  pledge  contains  the  following: 

“That  he  will  not  join  or  enter  into  any  agreement 

whatsoever  with  any  organization  which  shall  directly 

or  indirectly  involve  the  surrender  of  the  control  and 

management  of  his  factory  or  sub-factories  to  any  set 

or  group  of  men  whether  calling  themselves  a ‘union’ 

or  anything  else.”  , 

Very  truly  yours, 

THE  EXECUTIVE  COMMITTEE, 

A.  E.  Lefcourt,  Chairman. 


9 


New  York,  July  18th,  1910. 


John  Lundrigan,  Chairman 

Bureau  of  Meditation  and  Arbitration, 

Department  of  Labor,  Albany,  N.  Y. 

Dear  Sir  : 

We  have  received  at  the  hands  of  your  representative,  Mr.  Reagan,  a printed  copy  of 
the  paper  endorsed  “with  the  Joint  Board  of  the  Cloak,  Suit  and  Skirt  Makers’  Union.” 
This  document  was  accompanied  with  an  oral  statement  to  the  effect  that  the  paper  was  a 
statement  of  our  employees’  “grievances”  submitted  in  accordance  with  the  suggestions 
contained  in  our  letter  to  you  of  the  15th  inst. 

We  do  not  find  in  this  paper  any  statement  of  grievances.  We  find  upon  inspection 
that  it  is  the  identical  printed  form  which,  shortly  after  our  employees  left  the  shops,  came 
to  each  of  our  members  with  the  following  most  insolent  printed  letter : 

“Gentlemen : — Enclosed  you  will  please  find  a copy  of  agreement  embodying  the  de- 
mands of  the  Cloak  and  Skirt  Makers’  Unions  of  New  York.  Chir  settlement  headquarters 
are  at  Hotel  Victoria,  Fifth  Avenue  and  27th  Street,  (Room  228),  Tel.  1690  Madison 
Square.  Very  truly  yours, 

(Signed),  ALEXANDER  BLOCH, 

Chairman  Settlement  Committee.” 

In  short,  the  paper  presents  not  the  grievances  of  our  employees  but  the  demands  of 
the  Union.  The  first  paragraph  contains  the  following ; 

“The  said  firm  hereby  engages  the  Union  to  perform  all  the  tailoring,  operating,  press- 
ing, finishing,  cutting  and  button-hole  making  work  required  to  be  done  by  the  firm  in  its 
cloak  and  suit  business,  during  the  period  commencing  with  the  date  of  this  agreement 
and  terminating  one  year  from  date,  and  the  Union  agrees  to  perform  said  work  in  a good 
and  workmanlike  manner.” 

Other  paragraphs  make  clear  that  if  it  be  signed  the  Union  is  in  future  to  be  our  sole 
employee,  and  the  shop  delegate  master  of  our  factories.  We  do  not  object  to  having  union 
men  in  our  industry.  We  have  employed  them  before.  We  do  object,  however,  to  any 
contract  that  consummates  a conspiracy  to  prevent  every  non-member  of  the  union  from 
seeking  employment  in  our  industry.  We  do  object  to  turning  over  our  shops  to  the  man- 
agement of  outsiders.  We  do  object  to  the  Padrone  System  that  this  contract  seeks  to 
introduce.  Of  course,  we  cannot  enter  into  any  discussion  of  such  a document.  Y'e 
would  not  be  worthy  of  the  name  of  American  manufacturers  if  we  did.  We  cannot  enter 
into  any  discussion  of  a plan  to  violate  the  penal  laws  of  our  State  and  Country.  This 
contract  violates  both.  It  creates  a conspiracy  under  both  our  State  and  Federal  Laws, 
in  restraint  of  trade,  and  is  precisely  of  the  character  of  L’^nion  domination  condemned  by 
the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States.  It  would  destroy  our  freedom,  as  well  as  the 
freedom  of  every  worker  in  our  industry  who  does  not  care  to  belong  to  the  Union.  You 
would  not  ask  us  to  discuss  whether  or  not  we  should  join  in  committing  murder,  for 
murder  is  a crime,  and  crime  can  neither  be  arbitrated  nor  mediated.  Likewise,  you  must 
not  ask  us  to  discuss  whether  or  not  we  should  violate  the  laws  against  conspiracy  in  re- 
straint of  trade.  We  decline  to  participate  in  such  a discussion. 

Again,  as  we  pointed  out  to  you  in  our  previous  communication,  the  pledge  of  our 
members  precludes  us  from  discussing  any  contract  which  involves,  as  this  one  does,  the 
surrender  of  our  shops  to  outsiders.  We  still  stand  ready  to  discuss  with  you  Griez'ances, 
so  soon  as  employees  present  them  in  form  to  be  discussed.  We  await  the  presentation  of 
such  Grievances.  The  refusal  on  our  part  to  sign  the  document  proposed  cannot  be  con- 
sidered a Grievance.  The  demand  that  we  do  sign  it  does  constitute  a grievance — a 
grievance  on  our  part,  one  that  we  share  in  common  with  every  employer  of  labor 
throughout  the  country  who  respects  the  freedom  guaranteed  by  our  constitution. 

Very  truly  yours. 

The  Executive  Committee. 

A.  E.  lefcourt.  Chairman. 


10 


July  18,  1910. 


Mr.  a.  E.  Lefcourt, 

27  W.  24th  St.,  City. 

Dear  Sir: — 

It  having  been  agreed  as  per  suggestion  at  last  evening’s  conference  that  a committee 
of  ten  be  selected  with  a like  committee  of  your  organization,  everything  is  in  readiness  for 
the  supposed  conference.  Enclosed  you  will  find  a duplicate  copy  of  the  statement  issued 
to  the  presses. 

Yours  very  truly. 


(Signed)  Alexander  Bloch, 

Chairman  Settlement  Committee. 


11 


RESOLUTION  ADOPTED  AS  TO  WAIVER  OF  CLOSED  SHOP 
AT  THE  MEETING  OF  THE  EXECUTIVE  COMMITTEE  OF  THE 
CLOAK,  SUIT  AND  SKIRT  MANUFACTURERS  PROTECTIVE  ASSOCIATION. 

JULY  tsth,  mo 

UfSOlUpi:  that  no  conference  in  reference  to  settling  this  strike  be  held  with  any 
representative  of  the  employees,  until  they  present  in  writing  a statement  of  grievances  to 
be  discussed  at  such  conference,  which  statement  shall  contain  a waiver  of  any  demand  for 
the  closed  shop. 


12 


I 


July  18,  1910. 

Mr.  Alexander  Bloch,  . 

Chairman  Settlement  Committee, 

International  Ladies’  Garment  Workers’  Union, 

11  Waverly  Place,  City. 

Dear  Sir: — 

Your  letter  of  the  18th,  inst.,  together  with  a statement  enclosed,  was  laid  before  the 
Executive  Committee  of  the  Association,  of  which  I am  President,  to-day.  I beg  to  en- 
close herewith  a copy  of  the  resolution  adopted  at  the  meeting,  together  with  a copy  of  the 
letter  sent  this  day  to  the  Chairman  of  the  State  Board  of  Mediation  and  Arbitration. 

Very  truly  yours, 

(Signed)  A.  E.  Lefcourt. 


13 


July  19,  1910. 


Mr.  a.  E.  Lefcoukt,  President, 

Cloak,  Suit  and  Skirt  Manufacturers’ 

Protective  Association. 


Dear  Sir : — 

Your  letter  and  resolution  of  July  18th  at  hand.  Your  letter  requests  a statement  of 
grievances,  your  resolution  contains  a condition  of  a waiver  of  any  demand  for  the  closed 
shop.  The  letter  of  your  association  appears  to  us  uncalled  for,  but  in  the  interest  of  the 
great  cause  we  represent,  we  overlook  that,  and  in  reply  as  to  grievances,  we  would  say ; 
some  of  the  grievances  are  inadequate  wages,  long  hours,  overtime,  home-work,  unequal 
distribution  of  work,  evils  of  the  contract  system,  and  any  and  all  matters  that  the  employees 
desire  to  present  for  the  good  and  welfare  of  the  entire  trade.  As  to  a waiver  upon  any 
particular  point,  we  say,  if  that  should  be  done  either  by  us  or  by  your  association  it  would 
limit,  and  hinder  the  work  of  any  conference  that  would  make  all  efforts  for  a settlement  of 
the  pending  difficulty  existing  in  the  cloak  and  skirt  trade  absolutely  ineffectual. 

A conference  representing  the  manufacturers  and  their  employees  to  confer  on  all 
matters  that  may  be  of  interest  to  the  trade,  we  will  willingly  take  part  in,  at  any  time  and 
place  that  you  may  suggest,  and  we  shall  enter  upon  the  work  of  such  a conference  with 
no  object  in  view  except,  in  absolute  good  faith  to  serve  the  best  interest  of  all  concerned. 

Hoping  to  receive  an  early  and  favorable  reply,  we  remain,  for  the  cloak  and  skirt 
makers  of  New  York  City, 


Yours  very  respectfully. 


John  B.  Lennon. 

Treasurer  American  Federation  of  Labor. 


Alex.vnder  Bloch, 

Chairman  Settlement  Committee, 
Victoria  Hotel,  Room  228. 


14 


New  York^  July  20,  1910. 


Mr.  Alexander  Bloch, 

Chairman  Settlement  Committee, 

(Room  228)  Victoria  Hotel,  City. 

John  B.  Lennon,  Esq., 

Treasurer  American  Federation  of  Labor. 

Gentlemen  : 

I am  directed  by  the  Executive  Committee  to  reply  to  your  letter  of  the  19th  inst.,  as 
follows : 

According  to  your  letter  the  following  is  a statement  of  the  grievances  to  be  discussed 
at  the  conference : 

A — Inadequate  wages. 

B — Long  hours. 

C — Overtime. 

D — Home  zvork. 

E — Unequal  distribution  of  work. 

F — Evils  of  the  contraet  system. 

Although  these  are  stated  in  very  general  terms,  we  think  they  furnish  very  sufficient 
basis  for  the  beginning  of  a conference.  They  could  be  made  more  definite  as  the  conference 
proceeds. 

The  clause  in  your  letter  “and  any  and  all  matters  that  the  employees  desire  to  present 
for  the  good  and  welfare  of  the  entire  trade”,  we  think  is  too  vague  and  too  general,  and 
would  permit  of  conference  into  infinity.  If  there  be  any  other  grievances  you  have  in 
mind  in  addition  to  the  above  specific  grievances,  you  may  add  them  before  we  enter  into 
a conference. 

You  say  in  your  letter  “As  to  a waiver  upon  any  particular  point,  we  say  if  that  should 
be  done  either  by  us  or  by  your  association,  it  would  limit  and  hinder  the  work  of  any  con- 
ference that  would  make  all  efforts  toward  a settlement  of  a pending-  difficulty  existing  in 
the  cloak  and  suit  trade  absolutely  ineffectual. 

Apparentl}-  you  would  have  us  recede  from  the  position  already  communicated  to  you 
both  orally  and  in  writing.  This  we  cannot  do.  Not  only  are  we  prohibited  by  our  con- 
stitution and  by-laws,  but  at  a meeting  of  our  Association  held  last  evening,  the  entire  As- 
sociation unanimously  directed  the  Executive  Committee  to  stand  by  this  decision.  You 
complain  of  the  language  of  the  communication  we  have  sent  to  you,  but  apparently,  we  have 
not  made  clear  to  you  our  position  with  reference  to  a conference.  We  already  know'  that 
we  cannot  come  to  any  understanding  w'ith  you  if  you  are  not  prepared  to  recede  from  the 
position  you  have  already  taken  in  official  statements  to  the  Press  and  in  your  communica- 
tions with  the  Department  of  Mediation.  The  questions  are  simple: — If  w'e  should  finally 
adjust  in  conference  every  grievance  covered  by  the  topics  mentioned  in  your  letter, 

A — Would  you  demand  recognition  of  the  Union  ? 

B — Would  you  demand  the  exclusion  of  non-union  labor  from  our  shops  ? 

C — Would  you  demand  that  we  sign  a contract  with  the  Union? 

If  any  of  these  questions  is  answered  in  the  affirmative,  then  a conference  to  end  the 
strike  w’ill  be  futile.  The  decision  of  the  other  matters  must  await  the  determination  of  the 
strike.  The  questions  are  put  to  you  straight  for  w'ardly  and  simply.  They  permit  a simple 
answer.  If  you  cannot  answer  them,  then  the  conference  with  our  employees  can  only 
result  in  their  misunderstanding  and  their  deception  and  will  but  add  to  their  ultimate 
misery. 


15 


In  some  of  your  official  statements  you  charge  us  with  a “conspiracy  to  annihilate  the 
Union”.  Nothing  could  be  further  from  the  fact.  We  are  concerned  not  with  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  Union  but  with  our  own  business.  We  do  not  have  to  destroy  the  Union  in  order 
to  exist,  but  if  we  are  to  sign  such  a contract  as  your  Union  proposes,  we  would  be  inviting 
our  own  destruction.  We  cannot  close  our  shops  to  those  who  do  not  care  to  join  your 
Union.  This  is  un-American  and  unfair. 

We  must  remind  you  again,  however,  that  we  did  not  lock  out  our  employees.  They 
left  of  their  own  accord.  If  they  have  any  grievances,  we  stand  ready  to  adjust  them,  but 
we  cannot  invite  our  own  self-destruction  by  considering  for  a moment  the  surrender  of 
our  shops  to  any  organization. 

Already  there  has  been  misunderstanding  of  the  purpose  of  this  correspondence.  Please 
answer  the  three  questions  put  in  this  letter  specifically,  definitely  and  clearly.  If  they  are 
answered,  in  the  negative  the  conference  can  proceed  at  once. 

Very  truly  yours, 

A.  E.  LEFCOURT, 

Chairman. 


For  the  Executive  Committee. 


Mr.  A.  E.  Lefcourt, 


July  20,  1910. 


Chairman  Executive  Committee, 

Cloak  and  Suit  Manufacturers’  Protective  Association. 

Dear  Sir  : 

Your  letter  of  July  20,  1910,  addressed  to  Air.  Alexander  Dloch  and  John  B.  Lennon, 
has  been  duly  received.  In  reply  we  desire  to  say,  on  behalf  of  the  Cloak  and  Skirt  Alakers’ 
Unions,  that  apparent!}'  our  position  is  misunderstood  and  misinterpreted  by  your  associa- 
tion. There  is  no  desire  on  the  part  of  the  organized  Cloak  and  Skirtmakers  to  in  any  way 
injure  vour  business  interests.  The  very  opposite  is  in  fact  the  case,  as  we  have  a full 
understanding  of  the  fact  that  if  your  business  is  destroyed,  our  people  are  at  least  tem- 
poraril}'  without  employment.  We  have  endeavored  to  be  reasonable  and  open  to  convic- 
tion, and  while  we  cannot  enter  upon  a conference  setting  aside  in  advance  anything  that 
we  believe  to  be  of  interest  to  the  people  we  represent,  it  is  at  the  same  time  true  that  if  we 
can  be  shown  in  a conference  that  we  have  made  any  demands  which  are  not  in  harmony 
with  the  business  interests  of  the  Cloak  and  Suit  Trade,  we  would  have  no  hesitation  in 
receding  therefrom. 

Vour  letter  just  received  contains  the  statement  that  you  already  know  that  you  cannot 
come  to  any  understanding  with  us  if  we  are  not  prepared  to  recede  in  advance  from  the 
position  we  have  already  taken  upon  several  matters.  These  questions  together  with  those 
we  specified  and  any  others  that  might  come  before  the  conference,  we  are  prepared  and  are 
entirelv  willing  to  give  our  very  best  consideration,  and  are  open  to  conviction  if  the  dis- 
cussion of  the  conference  shows  our  position  to  be  wrong. 

I sincerely  trust  that  with  this  clear  and  straightforward  explanation  of  our  position 
that  there  will  be  no  further  difficulty  in  arranging  a conference  between  representatives  of 
the  Organized  Cloak  & Skirt  Makers  and  representatives  of  your  association. 

We  believe  in  organization  not  restricted  to  the  employees  alone,  but  in  organization  of 
the  employers  as  well,  and  we  stand  ready  with  such  ability  as  we  possess  to  meet  with  you 
in  conference  and  reach  conclusions  upon  all  matters  that  either  side  may  present,  which 
would  promote  the  best  interests  of  the  trade. 


A'ours  respectfully, 

(Signed)  Alexander  Bloch. 
(Signed)  John  B.  Lennon. 


17' 


New  York,  July  21,  1910. 


Alexander  B^och  & J.  B.  Lennon,  Esqs. 

Victoria  Hotel,  New  York  City. 

Gentlemen : — 

Your  letter  of  the  20th  inst.  in  response  to  ours  of  the  20th  inst.  is  received.  The 
letter  evades  the  three  questions  specifically  put  in  our  previous  letter  as  follows : 

“If  we  should  finally  adjust  in  conference  every  grievance  covered  by  the  topics  men- 
tioned in  your  letter 

“A — Would  you  demand  recognition  of  the  Union? 

“B — Would  you  demand  the  exclusion  of  non-union  labor  from  our  shops? 

“C — Would  you  demand  that  we  sign  a contract  with  the  Union?” 

Unless  you  can  answer  these  questions  in  the  negative,  further  correspondence  be- 
tween us  is  useless,  and  no  conference  to  consider  the  grievances  of  our  employees  can  take 
place. 

Yours  very  truly, 

A.  E.  LEFCOURT 

Chairman 

For  the  Executive  Committee. 


18 


THE  PROPOSAL  RECEIVED  FROM  MR.  BRANDEIS. 


Julius  Henry  Cohen,  Esq., 
New  York  City. 


July  24,  1910. 


Dear  Mr.  Cohen — I enclose  you  herewith  the  proposal  of  the  Joint  Board  of  the  Cloak 
and  Skirt  Makers’  Union  of  New  York,  signed  by  me  as  attorney,  for  conference,  with  a 
view  to  settlement  of  grievances.  This  paper  is  a copy  of  the  proposal  submitted  to  you 
this  afternoon,  embodied  in  the  letter  of  authorization  to  me,  signed  by  officials  of  the 
Union.  All  of  these  officers  understand  fully  that  under  this  proposal  the  closed  shop  is 
not  a subject  which  can  be  discussed  at  the  conference. 

Yours  truly, 

(Signed)  Louis  D.  Brandeis. 

P.  S. — I also  enclose,  signed  by  the  General  Secretary,  paper  interpreting  the  clause 
about  reinstatement  of  strikers.  ( Signed ) * Louis  D.  Brandeis. 


The  paper  enclosed  is  this  interpretation : 

In  the  proposal  for  conference  submitted  by  Joint  Board  of  the  Cloak  & Skirt  Makers’ 
L’nion  of  New  York  to  the  Cloak  and  Skirt  Manufacturers’  Association,  dated  July  24,  1910, 
the  clause  “In  the  event  of  such  settlement,  every  employe,  who  participated  in  the  strike 
to  be  reinstated,  is  to  be  deemed  one  of  the  subjects  for  discussion  at  the  conference,  and 
the  Cloak  and  Skirt  Manufacturers’  Association  are  not  to  be  deemed  to  have  assented  to 
that  provision  by  accepting  a proposal  for  conference. 

(Signed) 

The  Joint  Board  of  the  Cloak  and  Skirt  Alakers’  Union  of  New  York, 

By  John  A.  Deutsch, 

General  Secretary.  • 


19 


The  joint  board  of  the  Cloak  and  Skirt  Makers  Union  of  New  York  submits  on  behalf 
of  the  various  affiliated  locals,  to  the  Cloak  and  Skirt  Manufacturers  Association,  the 
following  : — 

Our  main  grievances  are  : 

Low  wages,  unreasonable  night  work,  work  in  tenement  houses,  the  disregarding  of 
holidays  and  Sundays,  sub-contracting,  discrimination  against  union  men,  the  irregular  pay- 
ment of  wages,  the  extracting  of  security,  the  charging  for  material  and  electricity,  and  the 
blacklisting  of  active  union  men. 

To  remedy  these  grievances  it  is  in  our  opinion  necessary  to  establish  a living  standard 
of  wages,  to  regulate  the  hours  of  labor,  to  limit  night  work,  to  prevent  work  on  holidays,  to 
abolish  all  charges  for  electricity  and  appliances,  to  do  away  with  tenement  house  work,  to 
prevent  discrimination,  to  provide  for  the  regular  payment  of  wages  in  cash  both  by  manufac- 
turers and  outside  contractors,  to  do  away  with  inside  sub-contracting,  to  establish  a permanent 
board  of  arbitration  which  is  to  settle  grievances,  the  union  and  employers  to  be  equally  rep- 
resented on  the  board  of  arbitration,  the  appointment  of  shop  committees  and  shop  delegates. 

We  are  ready  to  enter  into  a discussion  with  you  of  these  grievances  and  if  a satisfactory 
adjustment  of  them  is  reached  are  prepared  to  recommend  a settlement  of  the  strike.  In  the 
event  of  such  settlement  every  employee  who  participated  in  the  strike  to  be  reinstated,  the 
terms  of  any  settlement  which  may  be  reached  to  be  reduced  to  writing  and  signed  by  both 
parties  through  their  representatives. 

THE  JOINT  BOARD  OF  CLOAK  AND  SKIRT 
MAKERS  UNION  OF  NEW  YORK 

By  Louis  D.  Brandeis, 

July  24th,  1910.  Attorney. 


In  the  proposal  for  conference  submitted  by  the  Joint  Board  of  Cloak  and  Skirt  Makers 
Unions  of  New  York  to  the  Cloak  and  Skirt  Manufacturers  Association,  dated  July  24th,  1910, 
the  clause  “In  the  event  of  such  settlement  every  employee  who  participated  in  the  strike  to 
be  reinstated’’  is  to  be  deemed  one  of  the  subjects  for  discussion  at  the  conference.  And  the 
Cloak  and  Skirt  Manufacturers  Association  are  not  to  be  deemed  to  have  assented  to  that 
provision  by  accepting  the  proposal  for  a conference. 

THE  JOINT  BOARD  OF  THE  CLOAK  AND  SKIRT 
MAKERS  UNIONS  OF  NEW  YORK 

By  John  A.  Dyche, 

General  Secretar}-. 

The  original  proposal  submitted  to  Mr.  Brandeis  was  signed  as  follows  ; 


We,  the  undersigned,  authorize  Loyis  (sic)  D.  Brandeis  to 
present  the  above  on  behalf  of  the  Union. 

Max  Hyman, 

Chairman  Law  Committee. 


S.  POLAKOFF 
J.  Wolf 
S.  Rabinowiz 
H.  Kleiman 


Alex.  Block,  Chairman  Settlement  Com. 
Jesse  S.  Greenbekger 
John  A.  Dyche,  G.  S.  T, 

Max  Simof 
A.  Mitchell. 


20 


ACCEPTANCE  BY  MR.  COHEN. 

New  York,  July  27,  191C>. 

The  Cloak,  Suit  and  Skirt  Manufacturers’  Protective  Association  accepts  the  proposition 
signed  by  Louis  D.  Brandeis,  as  Attorney  for  The  Joint  Board  of  Cloak  and  Skirt  Makers’ 
Union  of  New  York,  dated  July  24,  1910. 

The  Cloak,  Suit  and  Skirt  Manufacturers’  Protective  Association. 

By  JULIUS  HENRY  COHEN, 

J0V  ' Attorney. 


21 


COPY  OF  TELEGRAM  TO  MR.  BRANDEIS. 


Mr.  Louis  D.  Brandeis, 

Boston,  Mass. 

Dear  Sir — As  the  attorneys  respectively  for  the  Cloak  and  Skirt  Makers’  Union  of 
Neiv  York,  and  the  Cloak,  Suit  and  Skirt  Manufacturers’  Protective  Association,  we  ask 
you  to  kindly  act  as  chairman  of  a conference  between  the  two  organizations,  which  will 
begin  tomorrow  morning. 

(Signed)  IMeyer  London. 

(Signed)  Julius  Henry  Cohen. 

Dated,  New  York,  July  27,  1910. 


22 


MINUTES 


Of  joint  conference  between  ten  delegates  of  the  joint  board  of  the  Cloak, 
Suit  and  Skirt  Makers’  Unions  and  ten  delegates  of  the  Cloak,  Suit  and  Skirt 
Manufacturers’  Protective  Association,  held  in  Room  No.  5208,  Metropolitan 
Life  Insurance  Company  Building,  New  York  City,  beginning  Thursday,  July 
28,  1910. 


HON.  LOUTS  D.  BRANDEIS,  Chairman. 

Committee  for  the  Comrdittee  for  the 

Manufacturers.  Unions. 


E.  A.  Lefcourt, 

M.  Silberman, 

M.  M.  SCHWARCZ, 
Max  Meyer, 

Joseph  Jonasson, 
Max  Rubin, 
William  Fishman, 
1.  Stern, 

Max  Solomon, 

R.  SODOWSKY. 


A.  C.  Rosenberg, 

J.  A.  Dyche, 

J.  B.  Lennon. 

Benjamin  Schlessinger, 
J.  Greenberger, 

S.  POLAKOFF, 

H.  Kleinman, 

Alex.  Bloch, 

A.  Baffa, 

Morris  Siegman, 


JULIUS  HENRY  COHEN,  Esq.,  Attorney  for  Manufacturers’  Committee. 
MEYER  LONDON,  Esq.,  Attorney  for  Unions’  Committee. 


MORNING  SESSION. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Gentlemen,  we  have  come  together  in  a matter  which 

we  must  all  recognize  is  very  serious,  and  an  important  business,  not  only  to  settle 
this  strike,  but  to  create  a relation  which  will  prevent  similar  strikes  in  the  future. 
That  work  is  one  which,  it  seems  to  me,  is  approached  in  a spirit  which  makes 
the  situation  a very  hopeful  one,  and  I am  sure  from  my  conferences  with  counsel 
of  both  parties,  and  with  individual  members  whom  they  represent,  that  those  who 
are  here  are  all  here  with  that  desire.  Counsel  have  agreed,  and  I have  approved 
of  the  order  which  may  best  be  pursued  to  advance  this  conference.  I understand 
that  Mr.  London,  who  is  the  Chairman  representing  the  employees,  will  make  a 
preliminary  statement,  and  presumably  Mr.  Cohen,  as  representing  the  manu- 
facturers, will  have  some  preliminary  statement  also  to  make  in  reply. 

After  those  statements  are  made,  the  specific  questions — specific  grievances,  will 
be  taken  up  in  an  order  which  has  been  agreed  upon  by  the  counsel  as  represent- 
ing the  two  parties,  and  perhaps  it  will  be  of  interest  to  you  to  know  that  order. 
It  is  this : 

First,  the  question  of  the  subject  of  electricity,  or  power  and  materials. 

Secondly,  the  question  of  work  in  tenement  houses. 

Third,  the  exacting  of  security  from  employees. 

Fourth,  the  discrimination  against  union  men. 

Fifth,  blacklisting  of  active  union  men. 

Sixth,  overtime  and  night  work. 

Seventh,  the  question  of  holidays  and  Sundays. 

Eighth,  the  irregular  payment  of  wages. 

Ninth,  subcontracting. 


23 


Tenth,  the  claim  of  low  wages. 

Eleventh,  sanitary  conditions,  and 

Twelfth,  the  general  method  of  enforcing  agreements  between  the  Association 
— the  Manufacturers’  Association  and  the  Unions. 

That,  I believe,  covers  in  a general  way  the  various  subjects  that  have  been 
suggested. 

In  respect  to  each  one  of  these  subjects  there  will  be  taken  up  the  grievance 
and  then  the  proposed  remedy,  and  we  shall  see  how  far  there  is  a difference  of 
opinion  between  the  two  sides,  and  how  that  difference  may  be  overcome.  Unless 
there  is  some  other  suggestion,  gentlemen — it  has  also  been  agreed  that  the  hours 
at  which  this  conference  shall  sit  shall  be  from  ten  to  one,  and  from  two  to  five, 
and,  of  course,  shall  sit  from  day  to  day. 

It  is  the  hope  and  expectation  that  without  unduly  hurrying  the  consideration, 
ail  parties  will  co-operate  to  bring  the  conferences  to  a satisfactory  conclusion  as 
soon  as  possible. 

I think,  gentlemen,  that  witli  that  preliminary  statement  we  are  ready  now  for 
the  statement  of  Mr.  Lennon  as  representing  the  Union. 

MR.  LENNON  : I only  desire  to  make  a very  brief  statement.  In  the  first 

place,  it  is  well  known,  I suppose,  to  everyone  here  lhat  I am  not  a cloak  maker. 
I was  once  a journeyman  tailor,  but  perhaps  I have  forgotten  the  trade,  as  I have 
not  plied  it  for  some  time. 

I desire  to  call  the  attention  of  the  conference  to  a matter  that  we  believe  should 
be  stated  now.  We  represent  here  from  50,000  to  75,000  people  wh.o  are  on  a 
strike.  As  to  the  exact  numbers,  it  is  scarcely  possible  for  anyone  to  ascertain 
what  the  number  are  exactly,  though  we  hope  to  know  very  accurately  before 
long.  They  are  not  only  a large  body  of  men  and  women,  but  they  are,  to  a very 
great  degree,  untrained  and  undisciplined,  and  it  is  not  an  easy  matter  to  reach  a 
consensus  of  opinion  and  a determination  of  any  particular  thing  with  a great  mass 
of  people  like  that,  as  it  is  for  you  people,  who  only  have  150  or  160,  or  200,  or 
whatever  it  may  be,  of  the  members  of  your  association,  which  you  have  to  con- 
sult. And  it  would  therefore  be  necessary,  under  all  the  circumstances,  in  view 
of  all  the  conditions  that  confront  us,  that  the  agreement,  if  one  be  reached — and 
I sincerely  trust  that  it  will — before  it  can  be  considered  as  absolutelv  final,  so  far 
as  we  are  concerned,  we  will  have  to  take  it  back  to  our  organization.  WT  believe 
it  is  right  that  that  statement  should  be  made  now,  and  not  at  some  later  time, 
because  if  you  had  any  expectations  of  something  different,  and  were  confronted 
with  it  at  a later  period,  it  would  be  perhaps  exceedingly  disappointing  and  not 
satisfactory,  and  we  feel  therefore  that  the  statement  should  be  made  now.  We 
also  are  as  desirous,  certainly,  as  the  Chairman  or  anyone  else  can  be,  that  all  the 
expedition  possible  be  had  in  carrying  on  this  conference,  and  that  we  reach  a 
determination  of  it  just  as  speedily  as  that  can  possibly  be  attained.  There  are — 
well,  I won’t  say  anything  further  now.  I will  stop  with  that. 

MR.  COEIEN : At  the  very  outset,  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  I v.'anl  to 

express  my  personal  gratification  that  we  have  gotten  together  around  this  table. 
It  has  been  my  hope,  and,  if  I ma\-  say  so,  my  prayer,  that  the  employees  and 
employers  could  sit  at  the  same  table  and  discuss  the  difficulties,  without  feeling 
and  with  an  earnest  effort  to  arrive  at  some  solution  of  the  difficulties.  I have  had 
various  talks  with  some  of  the  representatives  of  the  employees,  and  have  had 
many  talks  with  the  employers.  I think  those  with  whom  I have  talked  on  that 
side  of  the  table  understand  my  point  of  view,  and  certainly  the  people  on  this 
side  of  the  table  understand  my  point  of  view.  So  far  as  I am  personally  con- 
cerned, I do  not  approach  this  problem  as  a problem  of  economics,  as  to  how  good 
a bargain  can  we  get  out  of  this  situation,  or  how  good  a bargain  you  can  get  out 


24 


of  n.  In  my  judgment,  we  are  dealing  with  a very  big  humane  problem.  W e 
have  a problem  of  handling,  as  iMr.  Lennon  points  out,  allowing  for  all  reasonable 
discounts,  some  80,000  people.  W'e  have  our  own  business  problems,  of  course ; 
you  are  not  interested  in  that,  but  we  are ; but  in  addition  to  those  business  prob- 
lems, there  is  the  big  problem  of  how  to  treat  justlv  and  fairly  the  80,000  people 
who  are  in  our  industry,  and  still  preserve  our  industry.  There  have  been  some 
things  that  may  have  been  misunderstood,  but  there  are  some  things  that  we  cannot 
and  will  not  surrender,  and  that,  of  course,  involves  the  control  of  our  own  shops. 
We  understand  that  you  do  not  wish  us  to  surrender  that  control.  There  has 
never  been  a time  when  we  have  not  admitted  that  there  were  grievances  that  our 
employees  have.  Our  difficulty  has  been  in  understanding  and  ascertaining  pre- 
cisely what  the  grievances  were,  that  we  did  not  understand  or  had  not  yet  learned 
to  understand,  and  in  finding  the  remedy  for  those  grievances  which  we  know  to 
exist.  I don’t  know  anything  about  the  cloak  business,  except  what  I have  learned 
in  connection  with  this  strike  and  one  other  strike.  I am  like  iMr.  Lennon,  but  I 
have  had  the  training  of  my  profession,  and  I know  that  the  only  way  by  which  a 
situation  can  be  cured  is  first  to  ascertain  the  facts— get  at  the  truth  of  the  situ- 
ation, and  then  take  the  people  who  earnestly  want  to  meet  that  situation,  and  let 
them  sit  down  together  and  put  their  best  heads  together,  with  a view  to  finding 
some  remedy.  I have  not  come  here  on  behalf,  Mr.  Chairman,  of  my  people  with 
any  readv  made  panacea  ; I am  ready  to  listen  to  any  suggestion  that  should  be 
made,  and  I shall  offer  some  on  our  behalf.  All  I plead  for  is  that  we  handle  this 
conference  as  men ; handle  it  with  reason,  not  with  emotion ; with  a realization  of 
the  great  consequences  that  may  come  out  of  this.  I have  told  your  counsel,  Mr. 
London,  in  private  conference,  that  I am  confident  if  we  approach  the  conference 
with  the  proper  spirit,  we  can  adjust  the  difficulties  involved  in  this  strike,  but  I 
am  not  satisfied  with  that  personally.  We  have  gone  into  this  conference,  gentle- 
men, not  merely  for  the  purpose  of  adjusting  these  grievances,  but  for  the  purpose 
of  finding  out  some  way  by  which  this  awful  waste  in  the  settling  of  difficulties 
may  be  avoided  in  the  future.  With  all  of  the  respect  that  you  want  us  to  have  for 
your  rights,  and  with  all  of  the  respect  that  you  want — that  we  want  you  to  have 
for  ours,  there  still  remains  the  problem  of  how  cati  we  work  together,  and  it  is 
my  hope  and  my  prayer,  personally,  that  out  of  this  conference,  approached  in  a 
sincere  and  genuine  spirit,  we  shall  find  that  we  shall  agree  upon  something,  and 
having  agreed  upon  those  things,  you,  out  of  the  abundance  of  your  experience, 
and  we,  out  of  the  abundance  of  ours,  will  try  to  find  some  working  basis  for 
avoiding  future  difficulties  of  this  sort ; and  that  is  the  spirit  in  which  we  approach 
this  conference. 

It  is  not  a time  for  any  hatchets  or  any  pistols  or  any  knives ; ours  are  on  the 
table;  we  hope  yours  are,  too.  Now,  we  shall  proceed  in  an  orderly  fashion.  So 
far  as  my  people  are  concerned,  I have  ararnged  that  they  shall  only  speak  when 
I feel  that  it  is  necessary  for  them  to  speak,  and  they  will  hand  me  their  sugges- 
tions in  writing.  We  shall  adjourn  for  conference  among  ourselves  whenever  we 
find  it  essential.  We  have  arranged  so  that  you  may  do  likewise.  You  can  have 
a room  where  you  can  talk  out  your  views.  We  are  anxious,  Mr.  Chairman,  for 
a speedy  termination  of  this  conference.  It  is  costing  us  a great  deal  of  anxiety; 
it  is  costing  us  a great  deal  of  personal  inconvenience.  If  there  ever  was  pressure 
upon  a body  to  expedite  its  business  promptly,  it  is  here,  and  I must  personally 
express  my  gratification  that  through  the  generosity  of  your  side  and  the  willing- 
ness of  our  side,  we  have  been  able  to  secure  as  the  presiding  officer  over  our  delib- 
erations a man  who  enjoys  the  confidence  of  the  labor  men  of  the  country,  as  he 
enjoys  the  confidence  of  the  business  men  of  the  country,  and  with  his  legal  train- 
ing, with  his  knowledge  of  what  is  the  best  and  most  expeditious  way  of  disposing 


25 


of  such  matters,  I am  sure  that  Mr.  Brandeis’  presence  in  the  chair  is  the  best 
assurance  you  can  all  have  that  this  conference  will  proceed  expeditiously,  and  if 
any  further  assurance  on  our  side  is  necessary,  Mr.  London,  I beg  to  officially 
assure  you  now,  sir,  that  so  far  as  I am  concerned,  and  my  people  are  concerned, 
we  will  do  everything  that  in  us  lies  to  reach  a determination  properly  and 
promptly.  We  come  in  a meek  and  humble  spirit,  solely  because  we  are  realizing 
tlie  big  social  problem  that  we  are  facing  at  this  table  here;  that  it  is  not  a mere 
n atter  of  this  strike,  whether  you  win  this  strike  or  we  win  this  strike;  that  is  a 
subordinate  issue.  The  big  question  in  this  matter  that  we  want  to  dispose  of  is, 
how  can  the  people  for  whom  you  are  speaking  live  just  a little  better  than  they  did 
before,  and  how  can  we  help  them  to  do  it,  and  how  can  we  prevent  this  fearful 
waste  in  the  future,  and  we  are  humble  because  we  realize  that  is  a big  problem, 
and  because  it  is  going  to  require  the  best  brains  and  the  best  heart  we  can  give  to 
it,  and  w'e  are  going  to  make  that  contribution  on  our  side,  and  we  are  going  to 
expect  you  to  make  yours  on  your  side. 

THE  CHAIRMAN ; I think,  gentlemen,  from  what  both  Mr.  London  and  Mr. 
Cohen  have  said,  that  we  are  confirmed  in  the  belief  that  the  conference  proceeds 
under  the  best  auspices. 

The  first  subject,  Mr.  London,  which  is  by  agreement  to  be  considered,  is  the 
question  of  charging  for  materials  and  electricity,  and  we  shall  be  glad  to  hear  first 
from  your  side  on  that  subject.  I don’t  know  but  what  Mr.  Lennon 

MR.  LENNON : No,  I do  not  believe  that  my  acquaintance  with  the  details 

warrants  me  in  discussing  those  kind  of  matters. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Yes. 

MR.  LENNON;  And  Mr.  London  can  present  it,  and  then  one  of  the  other 
members. 

MR.  LONDON : Now,  I will  ask  your  permission  to  speak. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Certainly. 

MR.  LONDON  : Now,  our  committee  asked  Mr.  Lennon  to  present  each  and 

every  question  as  it  would  come  up,  under  the  impression  that  the  Committee  of 
Employers  would  do  the  same ; that  the  Chairman  of  the  Committee  of  Employers 
would  present  their  side  of  the  case,  but  as  you  have  decided  to  present  your  side 
of  the  case — since  Mr.  Cohen  will  speak  for  the  Employers,  I will,  I think,  with 
the  consent  of  my  committee,  take  the  liberty  to  speak  for  the  Unions. 

Now,  there  are  several  things  in  our  demands  that  should  be  consented  to  with- 
out any  discussion  whatever.  The  only  question  will  be  how  we  can  enforce  it. 

It  is  a disgraceful  state  of  affairs  that  our  employees  are  made  to  contribute  for 
tbe  expense  of  electricity  and  are  made  to  pay  for  the  use  of  materials.  I am 
confident  that  there  is  not  a trade  in  the  world,  outside  of  the  cloak  trade,  where 
such  a thing  is  practiced. 

MR.  COHEN:  May  I interrupt  you  a moment? 

MR.  LONDON : I think  the  Chairman  should  be  the  only  one  to  interrupt  me. 

MR.  COHEN  : I should  like  to  ask  IMr.  London  if  he  will  be  so  kind  as  to 

state  exactly  what  the  situation  is  for  our  information. 

MR.  LONDON  : The  situation  is  this : In  many  shops  the  employers  compel 

the  men  to  make — to  pay  for  the  use  of  electricity.  I have  here  one  book — it  is 
not  necessary  to  show  it — and  out  of  the  glorious  and  big  wage  of  $4.60  earned  by 
one  of  our  prosperous  employees — out  of  the  sum  of  $4.60  earned  during  the  week 
N ending  on  the  13th  of  June,  1910,  the  sum  of  nine  cents  was  deducted  for  the  use 
of  electricity. 

MR.  COHEN  ;■  May  I ask  Mr.  London  a question  ? 

MR.  LONDON;  Yes. 

MR.  COHEN : Is  that  a condition  that  prevails  throughout  the  industrv? 


26 


MR.  LONDON ; It  prevails — wherever  it  prevails  it  should  be  abolished.  1 
am  not  charging  any  particular  member  of  this  Association  with  that  practice,  but  I 
say  no  member  of  this  Association  should  hesitate  for  a moment  in  agreeing  with 
us  that  wherever  such  a practice  exists  it  should  be  immediately  done  away  with. 

MR.  COHEN : I want  to  get  light,  i\Ir.  London,  if  you  will  pardon  me.  I 

want  to  ask  whether  it  exists  in  a large  number  of  instances. 

MR.  LONDON  : In  a very  large  number. 

MR.  COHEN : In  how  many,  Air.  Rosenberg? 

AIR.  ROSENBERG:  Seventy-five  per  cent,  of  the  trade. 

AIR.  COHEN  : And  how  much  does  it  amount  to  ? 

AIR.  ROSENBERG:  Five  per  cent. ; fiv^e  cents  on  the  dollar. 

AIR.  COHEN : How  much  do  you  think  it  amounts  to  in  the  total  ? 

MR.  LONDON : I haven't  figured  it  up.  That  is  impossible  without  calcu- 

lation. 

AIR.  COHEN  : What  is'  your  best  guess  ? 

AIR.  LONDON  : It  is  impossible. 

AIR.  COHEN  : Does  it  make  a large  sum  or  a small  sum  ? • 

AIR.  ROSENBERG:  Sometimes  a dollar  a week,  and  more,  probably.  Fur- 

thermore— 


AIR.  COHEN : How  much  does  it  amount  to  in  total,  approximatelv ; what  the 

people  have  to  give  up?  I want  to  see  how  serious  a thing  it  is. 

AIR.  ROSENBERG:  It  is  not  a question  of  the  seriousness,  but  if  a man 

earns  $4.00  a week,  and  has  deducted  ten  or  fifteen  cents  for  electricity,  and  in  a 
good  many  cases  operators  have  to  furnish  their  own  machines — in  a good  many 
cases  in  the  City  of  New  York  a manufacturer  hires  a loft,  and  that  is  all  he  does. 
The  operators  bring  in  the  machinery — machines  of  their  own.  The  moment  he 
comes  to  the  shop,  if  the  garment  is  not  satisfactory,  he  has  to  remove  his  machine 
somewhere  else,  and  he  pays  50  cents  for  removing  the  machine,  and  only  earns  35 
cents  for  the  garment. 

THE  CHAIRAIAN : In  this  particular  instance  the  charge  for  electricity 

appears  to  be  about  two  per  cent,  of  the  earnings;  is  that  a fair  average? 

AIR.  ROSENBERG : About  three  and  one-half  per  cent. 

AIR.  COHEN  : In  what  percentage  would  you  say  that  existed  in  the  industry? 

Seventy-five  per  cent.  ? 

AIR.  ROSENBERG:  Seventy-five  per  cent,  of  the  shops. 

THE  CHAIRAIAN  : That  is  of  the  number  of  shops  ? 

AIR.  ROSENBERG : Yes. 

THE  CHAIRAIAN : And  is  it  a fact  that  that  is  more  largelv  in  the  small 
shops  ? 


AIR.  ROSENBERG:  No;  even  in  very  large  shops — shops  where  there  are  a 

hundred  machines  running. 

AIR.  SCHLESSINGER : In  many  small  shops  they  have  foot  power  onlv. 

AIR.  MEYER:  Some  large  shops  have  only  foot  power,  too. 

MR.  COHEN : Seventy-five  per  cent,  of  the  shops,  and  about  three  and  one- 

half  per  cent,  of  the  earnings? 

THE  CHAIRAIAN  : I suppose  it  would  average  from  three  to  three  and  one- 

half. 

AIR.  COHEN ; Let  us  take  that  figure — three  and  one-half.  That  would  give 
us  a percentage  of  about  how  much?  Three  and  one-half  per  cent,  of  75  per  cent, 
is  about  2.62,  say,  in  the  rough ; about  three  per  cent,  of  the  earnings. 


THE  CHAIRAIAN : No,  I do  not  understand  that.  Air.  Rosenberg  said  that 

about  75  per  cent,  of  the  men — of  the  employees,  but  it  related  to  the  shops  and 
not  to  the  employees. 


27 


MR.  ROSENBERG:  Seventy-five  per  cent,  of  the  shops,  yes. 

MR.  COHEN : Does  that  mean  75  per  cent,  of  the  emplo}^ees ? 

MR.  ROSENBERG:  No. 

MR.  COHEN : What  percentage  of  the  employees  would  you  say? 

MR.  ROSENBERG:  About  50  per  cent. 

MR.  COHEN : Do  you  gentlemen  agree  as  to  that? 

MR.  SCEILESSINGER:  It  is  an  average  guess. 

MR.  COHEN : Fifty  per  cent,  of  the  employees,  and  about  three  and  one-half 

per  cent,  of  the  earnings;  that  would  make  it — 150  and  25  would  be  175 — that 
would  be  somewhere  between  one  and  two  per  cent,  of  the  total  earnings;  and 
what  do  you  think  the  total  earnings  of  your  industry  are,  Mr.  Rosenberg? 

MR.  ROSENBERG:  I have  never  taken  the  time  to  consider  that. 

MR.  COHEN  : Twenty-five  per  cent,  of  $250,000,000? 

MR.  ROSENBERG:  About  that. 

MR.  COHEN : Twenty-five  per  cent,  of  $250,000,000  would  be  about  sixty- 

two  and  a half  million  dollars,  and  say  one  per  cent,  would  make  $62,000 — between 
$62,000  and  $100,000  would  be  involved  in  that  event. 

MR.  DYCHE:  There  are  probably  10,000  employees,  operators,  who  pay  this 

l)ig  amount,  whether  it  amounts  to  five  million  or  five  thousand. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Your  estimate,  Mr.  Dyche,  would  be  that  about  10,000 

employees  only  were  affected  by  this? 

MR.  DYCHE  : Yes ; about  10,000  employees  have  to  pay  for  power,  an  average 

of  about  three  and  one-half  per  cent,  of  their  earnings — for  electricity.  We  are 
not  statisticians. 

MR.  COHEN  : I am  not  asking  for  statistics.  I am  trying  to  ascertain  for  my 

own  information  how  serious  a matter  this  is,  and  not  at  the  present  time  to  con- 
sider the  justice  of  it;  that  we  will  consider  later.  I wanted  to  know  whether  it 
was  a large  or  a small  matter. 

MR.  SCHLESSINGER  : I would  suggest  that. you  figure  up  how  many  manu- 

facturers you  have  in  New  York,  and  how  much  it  would  amount  to  each  and 
every  one  of  them.  If  you  are  interested  to  know  the  exact  percentage  of  employees 
that  have  to  pay  for  electricity — if  you  are  interested  in  the  gross  earnings  of  all 
these  people,  you  should  also  take  the  number  of  employers  you  have  in  this  cit\% 
to  know  how  much  it  will  mean  to  every  one  of  them.  I should  think  there  are 
about  30  per  cent,  of  the  trade  in  New  YMrk. 

MR.  COFIEN  : Then  you  do  not  agree  with  Mr.  Rosenberg  about  50  per  cent.  ? 

May  I ask  this  question?  Your  proposed  agreement,  which  I only  refer  to  for  the 
purpose  of  simply  just  what  you  have  in  mind,  says  that  the  firm  is  to  furnish  to 
all  employees,  free  of  charge,  sewing  machines  driven  by  electric  power,  which 
are  to  be  in  charge  of  competent  machinists,  and  all  requisites  for  work,  ft  it  your 
understanding,  Mr.  London,  that  all  work  done  in  the  factories  can  be  done  by- 
electric  power? 

MR.  LONDON : I say  all  work  that  can  be  done  by  electric  power  should  be 

done  by  electric  power. 

A VOICE:  All  the  operating  work. 

MR.  LONDON : All  the  operating  work,  and  as  to  the  provision  about  ma- 
chinists, we  have  found  that  in  a good  many  shops  tailors  were  compelled  to  at- 
tend to  the  machines ; of  course,  with  dire  results. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : That  is,  Mr.  London,  ymu  are  proposing  that  it  should  be 
clone  by  electric  power,  in  order  to  avoid  any  mechanical  assistance  from  the  em- 
ployees in  operating  the  machines? 

MR.  LONDON : No.  Wherever  they  introduce  electricity,  that  the  machines 

.should  be  in  charge  of  a competent  machinist,  and  that  the  tailor  should  not  be 
asked  to  take  charge  of  the  machines. 


28 


THE  CHAIRMAN : Now,  to  what  extent  are  the  machines  operated  by  steam 

power,  as  distinguished  from  electricity  ? 

MR.  LONDON : That  would  be  the  same  thing. 

THE  CHAIRMAN  : You  did  not  mean  to  confine  it  to  electricity? 

MR.  LONDON : Power  other  than  foot  power  or  human  power. 

MR.  COHEN : That  is  one  of  the  things  I am  trying  to  get  at.  I understand 

there  are  some  very  high-class  shops  operated  by  foot  power ; isn’t  that  a fact,  Mr. 
London  ? 

MR.  LONDON : That  is  true. 

MR.  COHEN : You  would  require  them  to  change  their  power  to  electricity? 

MR.  LONDON : I would  require  them  in  the  course  of  time ; not  to-day  or 

to-morrow;  not  to  break  up  their  business  to-day,  but  I would  require  them  in  the 
course  of  time  to  introduce  electric  power. 

MR.  COHEN  : How  would  you  expect  our  association  to  work  toward  that 

end  ? 

MR.  LONDON : Well,  if  you  think  it  is  a reasonable  demand  and  that  it 

should  be  complied  with,  and  if  you  will  adopt  that  as  your  code  of  conduct,  why, 
you  will 

MR.  COHEN : A code  is  a definite  thing.  Your  suggestion  is  that  it  is  some- 

thing we  should  strive  for  in  the  industry? 

MR.  LONDON : Yes. 

MR.  COHEN : Well,  what  would  you  ask  us  to  obligate  ourselves  to  do  in 

that  respect? 

MR.  LONDON : I would  ask  your  members  to  obligate  themselves  to  install 

electrically  driven  machines  in  a reasonable  time  in  their  factories. 

MR.  COHEN ; Then  you  leave  the  question  open  as  to  what  is  a reason- 
able time? 

MR.LONDON : Of  course. 

MR.  COHEN : I rvant  to  avoid  indefiniteness. 

MR.  LONDON : Now,  then,  you  can  come  to  an  understanding  as  to 

what  a reasonable  time  means. 

MR.  COHEN:  You  think  we  can? 

MR.  LONDON : Oh,  yes,  I think  we  can. 

MR.  COHEN : Then,  as  I understand  it,  that  problem  is  one  that  embraces 

two  propositions.  First,  the  introduction  of  electricity  where  electricity  does  not 
exist,  and  secondly,  the  elimination  of  the  charges  for  electricity. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : I should  put  it  the  other  way.  There  is  one  thing 

that  can  be  put  into  operation  at  once,  if  it  is  the  agreement  of  the  conference ; 
that  is,  that  where  charges  are  now  made  they  shall  be  discontinued;  and 
secondly,  where  foot  power  is  now  used,  steps  shall  be  taken  to  substitute 
electricity  or  steam  power  within  what  may  prove  to  be  a reasonable  time, 
and  I suppose  that  what  is  a reasonable  time  might  conceivably  differ  with 
different  estimates;  that  is,  that  when  we  come  to  the  question  of  remedies, 
we  should  have  to  provide  some  method  of  determining  what  is  a reasonable 
time  with  reference  to  particular  items. 

MR.  COHEN ; I would  be  obliged  to  say  now,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  the 
conditions  of  the  industry  are  such  that  in  the  higher  class  of  trade  where 
the  work  is  done  with  more  skill,  with  more  design,  the  installation  of  elec- 
trical machinery  is  impracticable,  and  I doubt  very  much  whether  we  can 
make  a general  rule  for  the  entire  industry. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Well,  let  us  consider 

MR.  SCHLESSINGER : Outside  of  the  City  of  New  York,  where  electric 
power  is  used,  it  is  not  charged  for. 


29 


MR.  COHEN : Well,  that  is  a small  proportion  of  the  industry.  The 

important  portion  is  in  New  York. 

MR.  LENNON:  The  details  of  this  I am  not  familiar  with.  I am  in  the 

trade  union  movement  because  I am  a humanitarian ; that  is  al  the  bottom 
of  it;  that  is  at  the  center  of  it,  and  at  the  top  also.  With  the  strenuosity  of 
modern  industry,  can  any  man  defend  the  application  of  human  power  where 
motive  power  of  some  character  can  be  used? 

MR.  COHEN : We  do  not  discuss  that  question.  We  are  agreed  as  to 

that. 

MR.  LENNON:  You  agree  as  to  that? 

MR.  COHEN : Yes.  I do  not  dispute  that,  but  what  I am  trying  to  find 

out  how  we  can  apply  that  principle  to  this  particular  industry. 

MR.  LENNON : If  we  qre  agreed  as  to  that,  then 

MR.  COHEN:  Certainly. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Let  me  come  back,  with  your  permission,  to  the  first 

question,  as  to  whether  or  not  the  charge  for  electricity,  where  it  is  made, 
should  be  abolished.  There  we  eliminate  all  questions  as  to  what  is  possible 
and  what  is  not.  You  are  coming  down  here  to  a perfectly  defiirite  financial 
question.  Now,  are  you  all  of  you  agreed  that  the  charge  for  electricity  is 
one  that  ought  to  be  abolished? 

MR.  COHEN  : Noav,  Mr.  Chairman,  I understand  there  are  two  sides  to 

that  question.  I have  not  made  a complete  investigation  of  my  industry,  so 
I cannot  speak  with  authority,  but  I know  that  in  some  of-  the  shops  the  em- 
ployees have  voluntarily  agreed  to  pay  for  the  electricity ; in  sofne  shops  they 
asked  for  the  substitution  of  special  machines  that  could  be  applied  to  their 
machines,  and  agreed  to  take  care  of  it.  Obviously  there  is  some  advantage 
in  making  your  employees  responsible  for  the  handling  of  the  machines,  be- 
cause then  he  will  not  use  too  much  power;  but  whether  or  not  it  is  a fah 
thingl  to  do,  it  seems  to  me  comes  largely  imder  the  head  of  compensation, 
because  it  is  like,  Mr.  Chairman,  our  usual  charge  against  a client  for 
stenography  and  typewriting.  Some  clients  think  it  is  an  outrag^  to  pay 
your  fee  and  also  j)ay  for  stenography  and  typewriting,  but  as  you  know  in 
a large  number  of  large  law  offices,  a charge  is  made  for  typewriting  and 
also  for  telephones,  and  the  fundamental  question  is,  does  the  fee  include  the 
charge  or  should  it  be  added?  We  think  that  question  can  be  taken  up 
with  the  question  of  vvag'es,  because  it  involves  a tremendous  sum  ’of  money  to 
us;  and  it  may  that  when  we  come  to  adjust  the  question  of  wages,  we  may 
be  able  to  adjust  it  along  with  that  question. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : I think  there  is  a different  point  of  view  which 

has  been  urged,  and  tbe  specific  thing!  has  not  yet  been  mentioned  here.  I 
understand  that  these  charges  for  electricity  are  not  charges  which  certainly 
in  many  shops  represent  the  cost  of  the  electricity  : they  represent  a very 
considerable  profit  on  the  cost  to  the  manufacturer  of  the  electricity,  and 
they  therefore  present  an  opportunity  of  abuse.  I have  heard  of  the  same 
thing  being  true — of  course,  I am  not  familiar  with  the  facts,  but  F merely 
wanted  to  call  attention  to  them  so  that  they  might  be  discussed,  because  they 
are  important — I have  heard  the  same  thing  in  regard  to  the  charge  for 
material,  that  they  are  made  the  occasion  of  really — of  changing  what  ap- 
pears to  be  the  rate  of  compensation,  by  charging  prices  that  vary  in  dif- 
ferent shops,  and  which  involve  a very  material  profit  in  some  shops  over 
the  cost  of  the  electricity  to  the  manufacturer.  Is  that  so,  IMr.  London? 

MR.  LONDON:  Yes. 


30 


MR.  COHEN : I am  ready  to  concede  that  the  system  opens  the  dcor 

to  a good  deal  of  abuse.  I am'  not  ready  to  admit  in  our  behalf  that  there 
is  such  a charge  or  profit.  I knojw  of  no  instance  where  it  is  correct.  If 
the  instance  can  be  pointed  out,  of  course  it  ought  to  be  rectified.  I)  sub- 
scribe immediately  to  the  proposition  that  it  should  not  be  made  the  basis  of 
a profit,  even  if  the  charge  is  made.  The  question  of  a charge  for  material  has 
not  yet  been  defined.  Let  us  confine  ourselves  for  the  moment  to  the  elec- 
tricity. I am  ready  to  agree  with  Mr.  Lennon  that  wherever  it  is  prac- 
ticable in  the  industry,  machine  power  should  be  used  in  place  of  foot  power. 
I am  ready  to  go  so  far  as  to  say  this,  that  the  extent  of  charges  for  electricity 
should  be,  if  at  all,  at  cost,  without  any  profit.  The  question  of  whether  or 
not  there  should  be — what  I said  was  this — Mr.  Bloch — I said  that  I agreed 
with  Mr.  Lennon  on  the  general  proposition  that  where  electricity  could  take 
the  place  of  foot  power,  without  injury  to  the  industry,  that  that  should  be 
done.  I also  agreed  with  him  that  the  charge  for  electricity,  if  it  was  to  be 
made  at  all,  should  not  be  made  at  a profit.  That  is,  there  should  be  l othing 
added  to  its  actual  cost.  Then  I was  about  to  say  that  the  question  of 
whether  or  not  there  should  be  any  charge  for  electricity  w'ould  depend  upon 
a number  of  other  circumstances — the  question  of  whether  the  worker  was 
getting  sufficient  pay  to  make  up — by  reason  of  the  fact  that  he  had  elec- 
tricity— in  other  w'ords,  Mr.  Chairman,  the  introduction  of  electricity  where 
piece  W'ork  is  done  is  to  the  distinct  advantage  of  the  piece  worker,  because 
it  enables  him  to  earn  so  much  more,  and  he  may  very  well  be  willing,  for 
the  sake  of  doing  more  w'ork,  to  pay  for  the  electric  power.  It  is  not  only  a 
humane  question,  but  an  economic  question.  Some  employees  have  gone  to 
the  employers  and  asked  for  electricity,  and  have  been  willing  to  pay  for  it, 
because  under  the  piece  Avork  system  they  could  take  so  maii)^  more  gar- 
ments, and  thus  make  more  money.  If  they  are  to  get  more  for  piece  work 
garments,  and  also  take  away  the  deductisoji  for  electricity,  they  ate,  in 
effect,  getting  double  as  much,  so  it  seems  to  me  that  the  question  of  Avhether 
or  not  there  should  be  a charge  for  the  electricity  depends  A'er\-  largely  on 
the  other  question  of  whether  or  not  the  w^orker  is  so  doubling  up  his  earn- 
/ings  or  Avhether  or  not  he  is  getting  sufficient  pay  for  it,  and  therefore  I 
think  the  question  is  linked  up  Avith  the  question  of  wages.  That  is  •i.y  only 
point  at  the  present. 

MR.  LENNON : It  seems  to  me,  gentlemen,  that — I say  this  to  start  Avifh 

— that  I would  not  have  had  the  slightest  conception  that  any  body  of  men 
in  the  world  would  have  a difference  on  this  whole  proposition,  that  there 
would  be  a slight  question.  I belie\"ed  that  when  we  approached  this  ques- 
tion, that  Ave  w'ouid  agree  before  we  Avould  turn  around  almost. 

MR.  COHEN : I haA-e  not  said  that  Ave  Aviil  not  agree. 

MR.  LENNON  : I knoAv. 

M!R.  COHEN : Do  not  misunderstand  me. 

MR.  LENNON : I am  not  going  to. 

MR.  COHEN : I want  to  listen  to  what  you  have  to  say,  and  listen  atten- 

tively, and  understand  it. 

■MR.  LENNON : No,  I was  going  to  say  that  as  an  old  tailor,  I have  had 

some  experience,  not  Avith  the  question  of  electricity,  but  Avith  something 
else  Avhich  has  a bearing  on  the  matter.  I have  worked  at  my  trade  Ifrom 
the  Atlantic  to  the  Pacific  Oceans,  and  occasionally  I had  to  take  a job  wdiere 
I could  get  it,  if  I was  broke  or  something,  on  the  road,  and  I would  find 
an  employer  that  made  me  furnish  the  basting  cotton  to  baste  up,  mv  coat, 
and  occasionally  I found  one  that  made  me  furnish  the  basting  cotton  and 


31 


silk  as  well,  to  do  the  sewing  with.  Well,  that  never  appealed  to  me,  and 
II  would  only  do  one  job  for  him,  enough  to  get  money  to  get  to  the  next 
town.  It  has  long  since  been  abolished  from  anything  like  first-class  custom 
tailoring  trade. 

MR.  COHEN  ; It  has  been  the  custom,  I know,  of  the  old-fashioned  law 
offices  in  New  York  to  add  to  the  bill  for  professional  services  a bill  for 
stenographic  work  and  typewriting. 

MR.  LENNON:  Yes^ 

MR.  COHPIN  : And  the  clients — modern  business  clients,  have  re(|uested 

that  that  be  discontinued. 

MR.  LENNON:  They  should. 

MR.  COHhlN : I think  they  should  myself.  The  result  has  been  that  these 

old-fashioned  offices  that  are  becoming  modern  add  to  the  charge  for  legal 
services,  and  eliminate  the  charge  for  stenographic  and  typewriting  services. 
We  may  find  the  same  way  of  remedying  this  condition.  You  rvould  not 
object,  I am  sure.  Yon  said  the  percentage  was  something  like  3/^2  per  cent. 
If  3"Ou  could  get  an  increase  of  wages  for  these  operators  of  lo  per  cent.,  you 
would  not  object  to  the  payment  of  per  cent. 

AIR.  LENNON : I would  object. 

MR.  ROSENBERG:  We  would  object,  as  a matter  of  principle. 

MR.  COHEN:  Wh\r  is  it  a matter  of  principle? 

MR.  ROSENBERG:  We  are  not  business  men.  We  do  not  care  anything 

about  your  end  of  it. 

MR.  COHEN:  I want  to  find  out,  Mr.  Rosenberg — you  say  that  even  if 

the  wages  were  increased  lo  per  cent. 

MR.  ROSENBERG:  Even  50  per  cent. 

MR.  COHEN:  Or  50  per  cent.;  you  would  still  object  to  that? 

MR.  ROSENBERG:  Yes,  to  any  charge  for  electricity  or  machinery. 

MR.  COHJEN  : As  a matter  of  principle? 

MR.  ROSENBERG : Yes. 

MR.  COHEN:  Why,  as  a matter  of  principle? 

MR.  ROSENBERG:  Because  we  believe  if  a manufacturer  w'ants  to  go 

into  business  he  should  fix  up  his  own  machinery,  absolutely.  There  are  men 
who  have  onl^^  $200  and  start  in  business,  and  hire  a loft,  and  hang  up  a sign, 
and  then  they  go  out  on  the  street  and  get  men,  who  can  bring  in  their  own 
machines,  their  own  shuttle,  and  their  own  needles,  and  their  own  cotton  and 
silk,  and  also  deposit  some  security,  and  out  of  the  security  they  go  to  wmrk 
and  buy  ^^oods  and  start  manufacturing. 

AIR.  COHEN : I am  sure  our  clients  will  be  in  sympath}^  with  putting 

that  down. 

MR.  LENNON : I want  to  give  another  reason  that  I believe  is  funda- 

mental. That  opens  the  road  to  any  amount  of  imposition  that  the  manu- 
facturer is  enabled  to  put  upon  a class  of  people  who  have  recently  come  from 
the  despotism  of  Russia  and  other  countries,  that  is  intolerable  here.  If  they 
(can  doi  it  for  power,  the)^  can  do  it  for  many  other  things,  and  it  opens  the 
road — the  door. 

AIR.  COHEN  : lhat  appeals  to  me  very  strongly.  Are  we  dealing  now 

with  a situation,  Mr.  Dyche,  that  exists — the  situation  that  Air.  Rosenberg 
discloses — I do  not  want  to  mention  any  names.  Does  that  exist  among 
members  of  our  association  too? 

AIR.  DA'CHE-  T know  it  exists  in  what  we  call  legitimate  houses  too. 

AIR.  COHEN  : We  may  be  able,  as  a result  of  our  conference  here,  to 

make  standards,  but  we  can  only  enforce  them  among  the  members  of  our 
organization,  and  while  we  agree  with  Air.  Rosenberg  that  we  want  to  elim- 

32 


inate  the  man  who  starts  Avith  $200,  and  has  his  capital  from  his  working 
men,  nevertheless  we  have  no  way  of  making  that  effective,  except  in  our 
association.  Do  you  know  their  names? 

A VOICE:  No. 

MiR.  COHEN-  Mr.  Lennon,  will  you  do  this  for  me?  Will  you  let  your 
people,  during  recess,  hand  you,  not  fixing  responsibility  on  the  part  pf 
anybody,  a list  of  names  whom  they  believe  to  be  members  of  our  association 
who — it  will  come  to  you  privately — avIio  are  doing  that,  and  I will  take  that 
matter  up  with  my  people,  beca'use  there  may  be  special  circumstances,  and  1 
want  to  find  out  what  they  are. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Would  it  not  be  undesirable  to  deal  Avith  the  ques- 

tion as  a question  of  a specific  shop?  If  this  is  a bad  principle  of  business, 
then  is  it  not  important  that  in  any  arrangement  that  you  reach  Avith  the 
union,  you  declare  that  to  be  a principle  to  be  abolished,  and  make  it  entirely 
immaterial  whether  members  of  your  association  are  in  it  or  not,  beccuse, 
undoubtedly,  as  you  stated  a moment  ago,  the  standard  Avhich  Avill  be  created, 
is  one  that  the  union  can  insist  upon  applying  generally,  and  it  seems  to  me 
it.Avould  be  advisable  not  to  make  it  invidious  by  pointing  out 

MR.  COHEN:  I think  possibly — I have  tAVO  AA^ays  of  finding  it  out,  of 

course.  I can  find  it  out  by  asking  my  OAvn  people  Avhether  they  do  it  or 
not. 

MR  CHAIRMAN:  Yes. 

MR  COHEN : And  the  other  way  is  to  find  it  out  from  you. 

THE  CHAIRMAN;  Yes. 

MR.  COHEN : There  may  be  people  in  our  Association  at  present  Avhom 

our  Executive  Committee  do  not  knoAV,  and  I want  to  do  this,  hir.  Chairman. 
I have  pledged  you  that  I am  going  to  try  to  work  out  a solution  of  this 
thing,  and  Avhat  I Avant  to  avoid — Mr.  Dyche,  I Avant  you  to  hear  me,  because 
I Avant  you  to  knoAV  th-s;  I do  not  want  to  put  doAvn  on  paper  a hope  or  ex- 
pectation. I Avant  to  put  down  something  that  can  be  Avorked  out,  and  Avhen 
Ave  pledge  ourselves,  I Avant  to  knoAV  that  Ave  can  work  it  out  Avith  our  Asso- 
ciation, and  I do  not  Avant  you  gentlemen  to  go  aAvay  Avith  any  impression 
that  Ave  can  alone  change  these  conditions  you  speak  about. 

MR  LENNON;  We  are  going  to  help  you. 

MR.  SCHLESSINGER:  I see  some  arguments  advanced  Avhich  very 

much  appeal  to  me.  For  instance,  taking  the  question  of  electricity,  I Avant, 
if  I make  an  agreement,  and  I charge  a dollar  for  my  Avork,  to  knoAv  that  I 
Avil!  have  a dollar  for  it,  but  if  at  the  end  of  the  Aveek  a portion  of  that  is  to 
be  deducted,  I do  not  knoAV  AV'hat  I am  going  to  get.  We  AA^ant  to  have  no 
charges  for  electricity,  or  anything  else,  so  that  the  prices  aauU  be  net.  If 
I earn  $20,  I Avant  to  xnoAV  Avhat  I get  at  the  end  of  the  Aveek. 

IMR.  LONDON : I desire  to  add,  Mr.  Chairman,  with  your  permission, 
that,  on  behalf  of  the  union  men,  I Avish  to  say  that  Ave  Avould  consent  to  pay 
for  the  use  of  electricity,  provided  that  a proper  system  for  the  division  of 
profits  Avere  introduced  in  the  trade. 

MR.  COHEN ; That  is  a very  kind  suggestion.  We  Avill  take  it  under 
advisement.  (Laughter) 

MR.  LEFCOURT:  If  it  is  not  asking  too  much,  I should  like  to  inquire 

Avhether  any  of  the  gentlemen  representing  the  employees  are  at  present 
employed  by  the  trade,  or  are  they 

MR.  LONDON:  They  are  engaged  in  a conference  Avith  the  employers 

^!R.  LEFCOURT:  That  ansAvers  me  technically,  but  not  directly. 

MiR.  LONDON;  Some  have  come  back  to  work. 


33 


MR.  COHEN : I vlo  not  understand  the  point  of  your  question,  Mr. 

Lefcourt.  What  is  it  you  want  to  find  out:  whether  these  people  have  tech- 
nical knowledge  of  the  things  they  are  speaking  of? 

MR.  LEFCOURT:  No.  I tried  to  find  out  whether  any  gentleman  on 

the  Committee  has  been  employed  in  the  trade  practically  up  to  the  time 
the  strike  was  called,  as  tailors  or  operators. 

MR.  COHEN : All  of  them  except  Mr.  Lennon. 

MR.  LONDON : All  of  them  except  Mr.  Lennon. 

MR.  COHEN : I do  not  think  we  had  better  press  that. 

MR.  SCHLESSINGER:  I just  want  to  answer  Mr.  Lefcourt.  He  asked 

whether  all  of  the  people  here  have  been  employed  in  the  trade  at  the  time 
the  strike  was  called. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  question  has  been  ruled  out;  withdrawn. 

MR.  SCHLESSINGER:  I want  to  say  in  reference  to  the  charge  for 

electricity,  the  question  is  not  how  many  manufacturers  of  the  Association 
have  installed  electricity  in  their  shops  and  how  many  are  charging  for  it, 
but  to  say  that  all  of  those  who  have  electricity  in  or  who  may  install  it 
shall  not  charge  anythmg  for  it. 

MR.  COHEN:  What  kind  of  work  do  you  do? 

MR.  SCHLESSINGER:  I am  a cloak  maker.  I was  an  operator  for 

thirteen  years.  I started  to  work  at  the  trade  when  I was  thirteen  years  old. 

MR.  COHEN:  How  long  is  it  since  you  worked  at  the  trade? 

MR.  SCHLESSINGER:  Three  years  ago. 

MR.  COHEN : There  has  been  a big  change  in  the  industry  in  three 

years. 

MR.  SCHLESSINGER:  Yes,  in  living  expenses.  Living  expenses  are 
higher  now  than  they  were  then.  In  the  building  trades  there  are  hod  car- 
riers. In  a two  story  building  the  hod  is  being  carried  up  by  a hod  carrier; 
in  the  sky  scrapers,  of  course,  a man  cannot  carry  up  the  hod,  and  a ma- 
chine is  carrying  lhe  hod  up.  Now,  whether  it  is  a machine,  or  whether  it 
is  a man,  the  hod  carrier,  his  hod  is  being  carried  up  by  a machine  and  he 
is  not  being  charged  for  the  electric  power. 

MR.  COHEN:  Would  you  insist  that  even  in  a two  story  building  the 

hod  carrying  should  be  done  by  electricity? 

MR.  SCHLESSINGER:  Just  one  second. 

MR.  COHEN:  Answer  that. 

MR.  SCHLESSINGER:  The  question  here  is  not  whether  I would  like 
to  see  an  electric  machine  carrying  up  hod  in  a two  story  building,  but  I 
am  simply  telling  you  that  the  men  should  not  be  called  upon  to  pav  for 
the  power. 

MR.  COHEN : My  point  of  view  is  this,  ]\Ir.  Chairman,  that,  assuming 

that  the  gentlemen  are  right  in  their  statement  that  this  thing  is  injurious 
to  the  worker,  because,  as  Mr.  Lennon  and  Mr.  Rosenberg  and  Dyche  have 
put  it,  it  oflers  opportunity  for  an  unscrupulous  manufacturer  to  make  un- 
reasonable and  unjust  exactions  from  the  worker,  there  still  remains  the 
general  question  whether  or  not  electricity  should  be  applied  throughout 
the  industry,  and  whether  we  can  enforce  the  small  manufacturer  to  do  it. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Before  taking  up  the  question  whether  you  should 

apply  electricity  where  it  is  not  already  applied,  would  it  not  be  well  to  dis- 
pose of  the  question  of  charging  for  the  material? 

MR.  COHEN:  What  are  the  facts  in  regard  to  that  ? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Charging  for  materials,  Mr.  Schlessinger.  What  is 

being  done  in  the  way  of  charging  for  materials? 


34 


]\IR.  POLAKOFF:  I want  to  make  a statement  here  that  one  of  your 

members  are  charging  our  tailors  six  cents  for  small  spools  of  silk  that  cost 
them  four  cents,  and  do  you  want  to  know  the  name? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  No,  do  not  let  us  have  any  names. 

MR.  COHEN ; Mr.  Polakoff  thinks  that  he  knows  of  at  least  one  member 

MR.  POLAKOFF:  And  more. 

MR.  COHEN:  How  many  more? 

MR.  POLAKOFF : Well,  about  two  dozen. 

MR.  COHEN:  About  two  dozen? 

MR.  POLAKOFF:  Yes,  who  are  charging  for  silk,  cotton,  and  so  forth 

MR.  LONDON:  Two  dozen  supposed  members  of  the  Association? 

MR.  POLAKOFF:  Yes. 

MR.  COHEN : I do  not  suppose  those  are  people  who  are  very  generous 

in  their  pay  to  their  employees? 

MR.  POLAKOEF:  Yes. 

MR.  COHEN : Do  you  gentlemen  feel  that  that  is  a matter  of  principle, 

like  the  electricity? 

A VOICE:  We  do. 

MR.  CQHEN:  You  think  that  could  not  be  adjusted  in  the  wages? 

MR.  POLAKOFF:  No. 

MR.  MEYER:  I should  like  to  ask  if  that  constitutes,  under  the  heading 

of  charge  for  material,  everything  which  has  been  mentioned  so  far,  because 
some  of  us  are  not  familiar  with  the  conditions  in  all  the  shops?  This  spool 
silk  proposition  is  one.  Are  there  any  others? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Polakoff,  is  there  anything  else?  There  have 

been  mentioned  charges  for  silk  and  cotton.  Are  there  any  other  charges 
of  that  nature? 

MR.  POLAKOFE:  Charging  for  needles. 

MR.  COHEN:  Are  there  the  same  number  that  charge  for  needles? 

MR.  POLAKOFF:  Well,  I could  not  say. 

MR.  COHEN:  About  the  same  number? 

MR.  POLAKOFE : There  are  a good  many. 

MR.  COHEN:  Is  that  the  practice  of  the  larger  manufacturers,  or  only 

the  smaller  ones? 

MR.  POLAKOFF:  The  larger  ones. 

MR.  COHEN:  There  are  some  of  the  larger  ones? 

MR.  POLAKOEF:  AYs. 

MR.  COHEN:  That  is  done  by  some  of  the  larger  ones? 

MR.  POLAKOFF:  Yes.  I paid  $2.50  to  one  of  the  largest  firms  fn  the 

City  of  New  York,  and  I carry  with  me  now  a shuttle  and  bobbin  for  which 
they  charged  me  $2.50.  I have  it  now.  I went  into  a shop  to  work,  and  I 
asked  the  girl  for  a shuttle,  and  she  said,  “If  you  want  a shuttle  and  bobbin, 
give  me  $2.50.”  Of  course  I did.  I was  compelled  to.  When  I quit,  I came 
to  the  girl,  and  I asked  for  the  $2.50.  She  said,  “Come  around  next  week.” 
I came  around  then,  and  she  told  me  the  superintendent  was  not  in  the  shop. 
I went  until  I got  sick  and  tired. 

MR.  MEYER : May  I ask  the  speaker  if  he  received  a receipt  for  his 

deposit  ? 

MR.  POLAKOFF:  They  do  not  give  any  receipts  there. 

MR.  COHEN : Gentlemen,  I assume,  of  course,  that  you  do  not  include 

in  this  charge  for  materials,  in  those  cases  where  machinery  is  injured  by  any 
of  your  employees,  or  parts  are  destroyed  or  stolen — that,  of  course,  you  do 
not  mean  to  include  in  this  point? 


35 


MR.  LONDON:  I must  ask  that  the  reference  to  stealing  be  stricken 

out.  We  do  not  warn  to  speak  of  stealing  by  the  employees,  or  the  bank- 
ruptcy by  the  manufacturers. 

MR.  COHEN : We  do  not  assume  that  every  one  of  our  members  are 

beyond  question,  and  you  are  not  going  to  claim  that  every  one  of  your 
members  is.  I do  want  to  know  what  protection  we  have  against  theft. 

MR.  LONDON:  You  have  a penal  Code  and  a Bankruptcy  Act  to  provide 

against  various  crimes. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  And  you  have  the  right  to  discharge. 

MR.  LONDON;  Yes,  you  have  the  right  to  discharge  them. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : I do  think  that  the  other  points  that  Mr.  Cohen  has 

made  are  proper  subjects  of  discussion,  whether  a man  is  to  be  charged  for 
breakage  in  machinery. 

MR.  LONDON:  Undoubtedly;  we  admit  that.  Any  breakage  that  is  due 

to  negligence  of  any  of  our  men  should  be  charged  to  them. 

MR.  POLAKOFF ; Provided  there  be  a machinist  in  the  factory. 

MR.  LONDON:  Of  course. 

MR.  MEYER:  There  is  sometimes  negligence  in  the  garment  proper; 

that  is  the  thing  we  are  speaking  of  now.  Sometimes  parts  of  the  garment 
are  damaged  through  neglicence  or  carelessness  of  the  employee.  What  I 
would  like  to  know,  is  to  have  everything  that  comes  under  the  head  of 
charges  for  material  defined,  so  that  we  will  know  exactly  where  we  stand. 
It  is  not  a question  of  standing  on  technicalities. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Are  you  prepared  to  make  a statement  on  that  subject? 

Mr.  Meyer  has  raised  the  question  of  charges  for  damaged  work. 

MR.  LONDON : I am  prepared  to  make  a statement  that  we  do  expect  our 

employees  to  do  work  correctly,  and  every  man  in  the  trade  expects  to  pay  for 
damage  that  is  the  result  of  his  negligence. 

MR.  COHEN:  That  is  a very  fair  statement. 

MR.  MEYER:  That  is  very  satisfatcory. 

TFIE  CHAIRMAN : Now,  gentlemen,  have  we  said  all  that  can  be  said  on 

the  subject  of  charges — I mean  all  the  points  that  can  be  raised  on  the  subject  of 
electricity  and  materials? 

MR.  LONDON : With  the  consent  of  my  Committee,  I would  like  to  sav  that 

we  have  not  come  prepared  with  affidavits  to  show  the  abuses  in  effect,  but  to 
state  a general  condition,  and  we  take  it  for  granted  that  many  members  of  the 
Association  know  of  these  conditions  of  their  personal  knowledge,  and  we  ask 
that  this  evil  be  done  away  with. 

MR.  COHEN : I will  say,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  I will  take  this  matter  with 

my  delegates  in  caucus,  and  will  come  back  with  a definite  answer  to  the  con- 
ference. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : And  will  you  also  take  up  with  your  delegates,  Mr. 

Cohen,  the  question  of  the  extent  to  which  it  will  be  possible  to  substitute  motor 
for  hand  power  or  foot  power? 

MR.  COFIEN : Yes. 

MR.  LONDON : And  on  the  question  of  what  a reasonable  time  would  mean, 

if  such  a thing  be  possible? 

MR.  COHEN;  Yes. 

MR.  GREENBERGER : There  is  another  charge  that  comes  up ; that  is  in 
regard  to  employees  having  to  pay  for  parts  that  are  sometimes  left  out  of  the 
garment.  The  cutter  cuts  the  garment  according  to  directions,  and  the  assorter 
assorts  the  garment,  and  the  garment  is  then  turned  over  to  the  operator.  At 
times  it  arises  that  parts  have  been  missing,  and  the  operators  have  been  charged 
for  these  parts. 


36 


THE  CHAIRMAN : Although  they  are  not  responsible  for  them? 

MR.  GREENBERGER;  Yes.  ’ , 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I suppose  every  one  vrould  agree  that  that  is  unjust? 

MR.  COHEN:  Oh,  yes. 

MR.  SILVERMAN : Regarding  the  shuttles  and  other  things,  the  custom  has 

been  at  all  times  to  receive  a deposit  for  the  shuttles,  bobbins,  silk  and  cotton,  and 
so  on,  but  invariably  that  is  returned  to  the  operator  when  he  returns  the  shuttle, 
and  so  forth.  That  thing  has  been  put  in  vogue  for  the  simple  reason  that  when 
an  operator  would  leave,  he  would  invariably  have  parts  of  the  machine  with  him, 
and  this  was  only  done  for  that  purpose.  I hardly  believe  there  is  such  a thing 
in  the  manufacturing  trade  as  to  refuse  a man  the  return  of  his  deposit  when  he 
leaves. 

MR.  COHEN : That  would  seem  to  indicate  that  if  the  manufacturers  have 

found  it  necessary  to  take  a deposit  for  those  tools,  that  there  should  be  devised 
some  system  of  protection  for  the  employees ; that  is  to  say,  there  should  be  a 
system  of  receipts  or  vouchers,  and  it  ought  to  be  such  a matter  as  that  if  any 
member  of  our  Association — I say  unhesitatingly  that  if  we  accepted  a deposit 
for  tools  or  materials  entrusted  to  an  employee,  I may  say,  I think,  without  con- 
ferring with  my  Committee,  that  if  we  established  a joint  grievance  committee  for 
both  sides  as  a result  of  this  conference,  and  it  were  found  that  any  members  of 
our  Association  were  guilty  of  failing  to  return  a deposit  to  an  employee,  I should 
advise  my  Comm.ittee  that  that  was  sufificient  ground  for  expelling  him  from  the 
Association. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : I would  like  to  ask  Mr.  Silverman  a question.  How 

much  is  the  total  deposit  which  is  customarily  exacted  from  an  individual  em- 
ployee for  bobbins,  or  tools? 

MR.  SILVERMAN : In  our  individual  shop  we  get  one  dollar. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  is  the  total  of  the  deposit? 

MR.  SILVERMAN : That  is  the  total  deposit. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : No  further  deposit  is  taken? 

MR.  SILVERMAN : No  further  deposit,  and  it  is  always  returned  at  the  re- 

turn of  the  tools. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Isn’t  this  a fact,  that  it  would  almost  never  happen  that 

at  the  time  a man  leaves  the  employ  there  was  not  at  least — I mean,  up  to  the  time 
that  he  leaves,  that  there  is  not  at  least  a dollar  due  him,  so  that  he  could  surrender 
his  deposit  and  get  paid  at  the  same  time — I mean,  surrender  his  shuttle  and  get 
his  pay? 

MR.  SILVERMAN : Well,  he  gets  his  pay  when  he  surrenders  his  book,  but 
the  deposit  has  nothing  to  do  with  his  pay.  We  cannot  hold  his  pay. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Take  this  case:  If  a man  was  going  to  leave 

MR.  SILVERMAN : But  we  do  not  know  when  he  leaves. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Suppose  he  wants  to  leave 

MR.  COHEN : Suppose  he  has  been  paid  Saturday  night  and  makes  off  with 

the  things,  then  you  are  not  protected.  It  is  very  much  like  a deposit  for  a latch 
key  or  anything  else. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : It  is  a good  thing  to  have  a little  protection  against 

theft. 

MR.  SILVERMAN : Yes,  and  we  must  have  it. 

MR.  LONDON : It  would  be  extremely  unfair  to  exact  a deposit  from  a man 

who  has  not  the  amount  to  deposit,  sO'  if  you  have  no  other  reason,  the  man  who 
has  not  a dollar  in  his  pocket  should  be  entitled  to  go  in  and  work  in  a factory, 
and  he  should  not  be  met  with  the  proposition  that  he  could  not  work  if  he  did 
not  have  the  amount  to  deposit. 


37 


MR.  COHEN : The  answer  to  that  is  that  the  deposit  has  never  been  exacted, 

as  far  as  we  know,  until  the  man  has  earned  at  least  one  week’s  wages. 

VOICES : No,  no. 

MR.  MEYER:  I think  we  are  arguing  upon  a point  which  is  a simple  one, 

and  in  my  own  personal  experience  I do  not  remember  a case  of  trouble.  To  give 
an  illustration,  I sometimes  meet  a man  after  about  two  years,  and  he  will  have 
his  little  yellow  slip.  Naturally,  we  can  only  speak  about  personal  experience. 
That  these  abuses  exist  in  the  trade,  or  may  exist,  I am  not  here  to  deny.  I can 
only  speak  of  my  individual  case.  The  man  who  comes  to  work  and  is  wichout  a 
dollar  and  is  not  known,  and  will  stay  on  his  machine  for  the  first  day  and  get 
the  shuttle,  and  his  silk  is  entrusted  to  him;  very  often  a very  large  spool  of  silk, 
etc.,  and  I think  it  is  very  justified,  and  we  have  never  found — I do  not  believe 
I have  ever  heard  of  the  refusel  of  a mechanic  to  deposit  that  dollar  or  dollar  and 
a half,  bcause  it  is  a system  which  works  of  its  own  accord.  The  moment  he 
wants  to  leave,  he  says,  “Here  is  my  shuttle,”  and  here  is  your  money  back. 

MR.  POLAKOFF : I wish  to  state  that  there  are  manufacturers  in  the  Asso- 

ciation that  tailors  or  operators  cannot  com.e  into  the  factory  unless  they  pay  them 
five  dollars.  I want  to  state  that  there  are  some  of  the  members  of  the  Associa- 
tion that  the  tailors  are  compelled  to  pay  a dollar  a week  for  security. 

MR.  COHEN : That  is  another  topic. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : That  is  another  subject. 

MR.  POLAKOFF : There  are  tailors  who  cannot  get  into  the  shop  until  they 

give  them  five  dollars. 

MR.  BLOCH : I want  to  point  out  a statement  in  regard  to  unscrupulous  em- 

ployers. In  many  instances  that  have  come  under  our  attention,  these  tailors  and 
operators  have  been  compelled  to  give  a deposit  of  five  dollars.  Where  there  are 
20  or  30  employees  in  a shop,  and  sometimes  a hundred,  it  amounts  to  quite  a lot 
to  the  employer,  and  he  is  running  his  business  on  a shoe  string,  so  to  speak.  We 
find  it  is  just  as  possible  to  ask  some  of  the  cutters  that  handle  silk,  and  in  some 
instances  silk  has  been  taken  unbeknown  to  some  of  the  people,  and  the  union,  at 
all  times,  has  never  stood  by  a man  who  has  been  caught  getting  away  wdth  any 
of  that  silk;  they  have  always  punished  them  for  that. 

MR.  COHEN : Would  you  be  willing  to  stand  for  a pledge  in  an  agreement 

which  should  be  drawn  to  that  effect,  that  if  we  presented  charges  to  you,  wdth 
evidence  sustaining  it,  that  you  would  expell  from  the  union  any  man  caught 
doing  that? 

MR.  BLOCH : Of  course  we  would. 

VOICES : Yes. 

MR.  COHEN : You  gentlemen  feel  that  there  is  certain  unfair  competition 

existing  among  the  manufacturers.  We  feel  that  there  is  certain  unfair  compe- 
tition existing  among  the  emplo3rees.  Now,  w'e  have  got  to  protect  one  another. 

MR.  BLOCH : We  are  in  a position  to  do  as  a union  a great  deal  to  protect 

the  manufacturers  against  unfair  competition ; possibly  more  so  than  the  manu- 
facturers are  to  protect  the  employees,  because  of  the  mere  fact  that  some  of  the 
employers  may  be  of  this  unscrupulous  nature,  and  w^e  could  possibly  curtail  the 
output  of  his  work  unless  he  came  up  to  the  mark  of  you  gentlemen  here. 

MR.  COHEN : I do  not  think  we  could  do  that  legally. 

MR.  BLOCH : I only  want  to  show  the  feasibilit}.-  of  abolishing  this  system 
of  deposits;  that  it  might  just  as  well  apply  to  anyone  else  as  the  operator  that 
handles  the  shuttle. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Am  I right  in  understanding  that  the  union  representa- 

tives are  unanimous  in  saying  that  if  this  system  of  deposit  should  be  abolished 
the  union  will  take  upon  itself  the  necessary  disciplining 


38 


MR.  COHEN : Mr.  Chairman,  I did  not  understand  that  my  question,  which 

I asked  Mr.  Bloch,  w'as  qualified  in  quite  the  way  in  which  you  put  it.  What  I 
meant  to  say  was,  that  if  we  could  find  a system  that  would  make  the  deposit  less 
onerous,  might  we  take  up  the  matter  of  getting  redress  through  the  union  against 
unscrupulous  employees  ? We  know  that  such  people  exist.  I am  not  at  all  ready 
to  surrender  the  system  of  deposits  at  this  time.  I am  ready  to  take  it  under  ad- 
visement, but  I want  to  discuss  it  in  caucus,  the  feasibility  of  working  out  some 
solution  through  the  joint  co-operation  of  the  Association  and  the  Unions. 

MR.  LENNON : Let  me  state  it  this  way,  that  in  such  cases  as  those  above 

referred  to,  that  the  union  will  by  expulsion  or  other  discipline,  take  such  action 
against  members  who  violate  this  principle  of  right  as  will  properly  protect  the 
interests  of  employers  against  whom  this  act  has  been  perpetrated. 

THE  CHAIRMAN ; Do  you  mean  by  that,  Mr.  Lennon,  to  go  so  far  as  to 
say  that  the  union  would  undertake  to  guarantee  the  members  in  this  respect? 

MR.  LENNON : No.  It  only  goes  to  the  extent,  that,  for  instance,  a man 

steals  a bobbin  out  of  the  shop.  The  union  will,  when  charges  are  filed  and  proof 
presented,  investigate  the  case  perhaps  a little  further,  but  if  the  evidence  shows 
that  the  man  has  taken  the  bobbin,  the  union  will  make  that  man  make  good  to  the 
employer  from  whom  it  was  taken,  the  amount  that  is  due  to  him,  or  if  he  does 
not  make  good,  expell  him  from  the  organization. 

MR.  COHEN : That  is  not  sufficient  discipline  to  stop  it.  That  merely  means 

that  if  a man  is  caught  stealing  a watch,  you  wike  make  him  give  up  the  watch.  I 
do  not  think,  Mr.  Lennon,  that  that  quite  meets  the  situation,  as  it  appears  to  me. 
We  have  a situation  where  apparently  a man  can  go  off  at  the  end  of  the  "week 
without  notifying  his  employer  that  he  is  going  to  leave,  with  his  wages  in  his 
pocket,  and  retain  material  that  belongs  to  his  employer,  because  of  the  curious 
nature  of  this  business,  that  you  can  take  things  in  your  pocket  and  take  them 
away.  Now,  it  is  not  an  adequte  remedy  to  stop  this  evil  for  the  union  to  agree 
that  if  it  finds  a man  has  actually  stolen  a shuttle,  it  will  require  him  to  pay  the 
price  of  it.  In  addition,  let  me  make  this  point,  that  we  have  to  deal  not  only  with 
the  union  men,  but  non-union  men  in  our  shops.  How  are  we  to  protect  our- 
selves, to  protect  ourselves  against  him,  except  by  the  system  of  deposit?  I do 
not  think  we  shall  be  able  to  do  away  with  the  system  of  deposit  for  the  shuttle 
and  the  silk.  I think  we  will  have  to  devise  a system  of  deposit  which  will  be 
fair  to  the  employee.  I think  if  there  are  cases  where  an  employee  cannot  get 
work  except  by  making  a deposit,  some  system  should  be  devised  for  meeting  that 
situation,  if  he  is  a worthy  employee,  but  I do  not  think  we  will  be  able  to  do  away 
completely  with  the  system  of  deposit. 

MR.  LENNON : Oh,  but  we  can  do  away  with  its  abuse. 

MR.  COHEN : Yes. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : It  seems  to  me  the  time  has  about  come  for  our  noon 
adjournment,  and  that  it  would  be  well  if  during  the  adjournment  the  represen- 
tatives of  the  union  could  confer  together  and  see  whether  they  have  any  definite 
recommendations  or  suggestions  that  they  could  make  to  you,  that  you  can  take 
under  consideration,  for  your  protection. 

MR.  COHEN : We  would  like  to  have  a definite  suggestion  in  the  line  of  this 

discussion,  but  is  it  fair  to  these  gentlemen  to  use  up  their  lunch  hour? 

MR.  LONDON : That  is  all  right ; we  are  agreed  upon  it. 

Recess  taken  until  2 :oo  P.  M. 


39 


AFTERNOON  SESSION. 


MR.  COHEN : Mr.  London,  have  you  formulated  your  suggestion  ? 

MR.  LONDON ; I understand  that  Mr.  Lennon  is  formulating  one. 

MR.  LENNON : Well,  we  will  have  to  have  a consultation  before  we  can  do 

that. 

THE  CHAIRMAN  : That  is,  you  want  to  confer  about  it?  Then  we  will  pass 
to  the  next  subject,  if  it  is  agreeable. 

MR.  ROSENBERG;  The  only  thing  I would  like  to  say  in  connection  with 
this  last  subject  is  this,  that  Mr.  Cohen  in  his  remarks  about  the  giving  of  security 
from  men,  among  other  things,  said  that  the  problem  of  non-union  men  was  likely 
to  arise.  Now,  we,  in  this  conference,  understand  that  the  question  of  non-union 
men  cannot  be  brought  up,  because  it  is  our  understanding  of  this  conference  that 
all  our  men  are  to  be  union  men,  and  that  the  employers  are  to  employ  union  men 
as  long  as  we  can  supply  them  with  union  men;  that  is  our  understanding.  If 
we  cannot  supply  them  with  union  men,  why  they  are  at  liberty  to  employ  non- 
union men. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : If  you  will  allow  me  to  state,  Mr.  London,  I do  not 

think  that  that  subject  can  be  a subject  for  discussion  here.  I suppose  it  is  well 
recognized  that  the  union  will  endeavor  to  extend  their  unionship  as  far  as  they 
can ; that,  of  course,  goes  without  saying,  but  I do  not  understand  that  there  is  any 
obligation  assumed  on  that  subject,  and  that  we  ought  not  to  proceed  upon  any 
theory  of  that  obligation.  That  remark  of  Mr.  Cohen’s  is  simply  one  of  the  rea- 
sons and  one  of  the  difficulties  which  he  said  he  had  to  call  to  the  attention  of  the 
Committee. 

MR.  COHEN : Exactly. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : It  seems  to  me  that  is  all  we  have  had  and  I think  we 

had  better  pass  that  subject  at  the  present,  and  proceed  to  the  second,  the  work 
in  tenement  houses. 

MR.  COHEN ; I am  ready,  sir. 

MR.  LONDON : I was  going  to  say  that  the  question,  once  brought  up,  should 

be  dealt  with  in  the  proper  spirit  now.  We  may  strike  up  against  that  question 
at  another  point. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : It  seems  to  me,  Mr.  London,  that  that  question  is  more 

appropriately  discussed  in  the  clause  which  we  entitle  the  general  methods  of  en- 
forcing agreements  between  the  Association  and  the  Union,  and  that  it  is  not  prop- 
erly discussed  under  the  head  of  the  supply  of  electricity  and  materials. 

MR.  LONDON : — That  is  very  satisfactor}^  to  me.  The  discussion  is  post- 
poned. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : We  have  now  then,  as  the  second  subject  of  discussion, 

the  alleged  grievance  in  relation  to  the  work  in  tenement  houses.  Mr.  Lehnon, 
will  you  or  Mr.  London  undertake  to  discuss  that? 

MR.  LENNON : I do  not  want  to  take  much  time.  We  discussed  practically 

this  morning  three  phases  of  a certain  question.  One  was  as  to  the  matter  of 
installing'  power ; another  one  was  as  to  the  charges  to  employees  for  power,  and 
the  other  was  as  to  charges  for  materials,  such  as  needles,  silk,  cotton,  and  so 
forth.  Now,  I expressed  m3^self — I do  not  like  to  take  much  time — I expressed 
myself  just  about  as  strongly  as  I felt  I ought  to  this  morning  on  the  necessity 
of  getting  through  with  this  conference  as  soon  as  it  is  possible  to  be  done.  M'e 
would  like  to  get  through  with  it  within  48  hours  from  the  time  it  starts,  and  if 
we  drop  this  question  now  and  take  up  the  next  one,  what  is  the  Chairman’s  idea 
of  how  we  are  going  to  reach  a solution  ? How  are  we  going  to  know 


THE  CHAIRMAN ; I understood,  Mr.  Lennon — I made  the  suggestion  of 
dropping  question  one  and  passing  to  question  2,  only  because  you  were  not  ready 
to  report  the  suggestions  of  yours  and  your  associates  as  to  what  remedy  ought  to 
be  proposed  and  what  specific  thing  done,  especially  on  the  subject  of  deposits. 

MR.  LENNON:  Well,  now  about  the  other  question  that  they  were  to  fur- 
nish ; are  they  prepared  to 

THE  CHAIRMAN : I understood  that  you  would  submit  them  a proposition 

on  the  subject  of  deposits,  and  that  with  that  before  them,  they  would  discuss  the 
whole  question  among  themselves,  and  then  present  their  views. 

AIR.  LENNON  : Yes;  all  right. 

I'HE  CHAIRMAN : And  I think  we  will  make  the  most  speed  if  we  allow  that 

to  be  done. 

MR.  LENNON : All  right. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Now,  if  we  will  pass  to  the  subject  of  work  in  tenemient 

houses — will  you  speak  of  that,  Mr.  London  ? 

AIR.  LONDON ; With  regard  to  work  in  tenement  houses,  I have,  during  the 
last  ten  or  twelve  years,  had  occasion  to  sign  agreements  of  the  kind  proposed  by 
the  trade  this  year,  with  almost  75  per  cent,  of  the  trade,  having  signed  agreements 
with  quite  a few  of  the  gentlemen  who  are  here — I mean  on  the  other  side  of  the 
table.  Now,  the  subject  of  home — of  work  in  the  tenement  houses — is  a very  im- 
portant one.  Work  is  being  sent  to  the  tenement  homes,  to  the  people,  and  it 
should  not  be  done.  That  is  all  there  is  to  it.  It  is  a violation  of  the  law  in  most 
cases.  We  are  prepared  in  this  instance  with  some  affidavits  showing  violations 
of  the  law.  We  have  records  of  violations  of  tlie  law  on  the  part  of  the  manufac- 
turers. Work  should  not  be  sent  to  the  tenement  houses,  and  to  the  homes  of  the 

THE  CHAIRAIAN : Now,  assuming  that  instances  do  exist  where  work  is 

sent,  is  there  any  controversy  on  the  question  as  to  whether  work  should  go  to  the 
tenement  houses.  Air.  Cohen? 

AIR.  COHEN : I do  not  think  there  will  be  any  likelihood  of  any  disagree- 

ment on  our  part  as  to  that.  The  only  question  I want  to  ask  Air.  London  is 
this;  of  course,  it  is  like  the  bribe  taker  and  the  bribe  giver.  We  must  prevent 
our  people  from  giving  the  work.  How  do  you  propose  to  prevent  your  people 
from  doing  the  work? 

MR.  LONDON:  Shall  I answer? 

AIR.  COHEN  : Is  that  a relevant  question  ? 

TLIE  CHAIRAIAN : I wondered  whether  the  question  really  was  relevant  at 

this  time.  It  strikes  me  as  if  we  would  probably  make  the  greatest  progress  if  we 
agreed  upon  the  things  that  should  or  should  not  be  done,  and  then  take  up,  in 
connection  with  the  broad  question  of  the  machinery  of  the  unions  and  the  com- 
mittees, the  question  as  to  how  it  should  be  accomplished.  Now,  if  you  agree — 
if  both  sides  agree  upon  this  question  that  work  ought  not  to  be  done  in  the  tene- 
ments, and  you  address  your  particidar  question  to  them,  how  is  the  union  going 
to  aid  in  accomplishing  it,  it  seems  to  me  that  is  a question  which  necessarily  will 
involve  the  machinery  which'  we  will  create  to  put  in  motion  for  the  regulation  of 
these  things. 

MR.  CO  LIEN : I do  not  ask  for  the  machinery  at  this  time ; simply  for  an  ex- 

pression of  the  attitude  of  the  union  on  that. 

AIR.  LONDON : It  has  been  the  attitude  of  the  union  to  educate  against  it, 

and  to  educate  our  people,  and  I am  quite  certain  that  all  legislation  on  the  subject 
is  due  to  the  efforts  of  the  union  and  largely  to  the  efforts  of  organized  labor. 

THE  CHAIRAIAN : I suppose  you  can  also  give  assurances  to  Air.  Cohen 

that  the  union  will  do  all  in  its  power  to  prevent  it? 

AIR.  LONDON : To  constitute  itself  the  enforcer  of  the  law,  as  far  as  it  can. 


41 


MR.  COHEN : If  we  went  so  far,  Mr.  London,  as  to  agree  on  our  part  to  ex- 

people, both  for  the  sake  of  the  men  and  for  the  sake  of  the  public, 
pell  any  member  of  our  Association  who  violated  this,  are  you  prepared  to  say  that 
doing  all  in  your  power  would  go  so  far  as  to  discipline  members  of  your  union 
who  would  violate  this? 

MR.  LONDON : Undoubtedly. 

MR.  ROSENBERG:  But  on  one  condition;  if  the  manufacturers  would  bind 

themselves  not  to  employ  those  men  who  are  expelled  by  the  union,  we  would  do  so. 

MR.  COHEN : Oh,  yes ; we  will  agree  that  if  you  expell  any  members  of  the 

union  for  a violation  of  the  agreement 

MR.  ROSENBERG:  You  cannot  find  out  what  they  are  expelled  for.  We 

can  only  guarantee  for  those  we  do  control.  As  you  mentioned  before,  the  manu- 
facturers will  be  employing  non-union  men.  Can  the  union  prevent  thosQ  non- 
union men  from  taking  work  to  their  houses? 

MR.  COHEN : We  must  be  responsible  for  that,  and  we  cannot  control  peo- 
ple who  are  not  members  of  our  association.  Upon  Mr.  London’s  shoulders  and 
upon  mine  will  undoubtedly  fall  the  burden  of  working  out  the  machinery  by 
which  the  things  that  are  agreed  upon  will  be  carried  into  effectiveness,  and  from 
time  to  time  I will  ask  questions,  not  intended  to  be  impertinent,  but  merely  to  see 
how  far  we  can  go,  to  formulate  a plan  which  I can  carry  out.  Do  not  jump  at 
the  conclusion  that  my  opinion  is  at  variance  with  your  own  in  all  of  these  things. 
Now,  may  I in  this  connection,  if  we  are  to  agree  upon  a principle  that  is  to  apply, 
add  that  we  must  also  understand  the  conditions  ? On  our  side  of  the  fence  we  see 
this  situation,  that  a number  of  the  workers,  not  at  our  solicitation,  but  desirous  of 
making  larger  returns,  will  take  work  from  the  shop  to  their  homes  for  finishing. 
Now,  I do  not  suppose  we  can  meet  that,  Mr.  London,  in  any  other  way  than  in 
the  general  way  we  propose  to  meet  this  problem.  We  can  make  a declaration  of 
principles  binding  us  that  no  work  shall  be  done  in  tenement  houses,  and  we  can 
try  to  enforce  it  on  the  members  of  both  our  organizations. 

MR.  LONDON : Exactly. 

MR.  COHEN : And  so  far  as  outsiders  are  concerned  we  must  rely  upon  the 
law. 

MR.  ROSENBERG:  That  is  no  solution  at  all. 

MR.  DYCITE:  How  can  a man  take  work  home  if  he  has  not  been  given  the 

work  by  a firm?  So  the  first  offender  is  the  firm. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : I understood  Mr.  Cohen’s  answer  to  that  to  mean  simply 

this : So  far  as  the  members  of  the  Association  are  concerned,  they  can  bind  those 
members,  and  the  Association  will  discipline  those  members  if  they  fail  to  keep  the 
agreement.  So  far  as  it  relates  to  persons  outside  of  the  Association  it  is  a mere 
standard  which  they  have  created,  and  which  they  hope  will  be  observed. 

M R.  COHEN : I don’t  know  that  that  is  quite  the  idea.  Of  course,  if  we  are 

to  insist  upon  ideal  conditions  among  our  members,  we  will  be  increasing  the  cost 
of  manufacturing  in  our  establishments,  and  if  you  insist  upon  ideal  conditions 
among  your  people  in  our  shops  it  may  result  in  driving  the  workers  into  shops 
where  the  ideal  conditions  do  not  exist. 

MR.  SCHLESSINGER : No,  there  is  a remedy  for  it.  The  remedy  is  sug- 
gested by  those  manufacturers  who  have  already  signed  the  agreement  with  the 
union. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Just  allow  me — if  we  have  reached  here  an  agreement 
that  each  association,  the  manufacturers  on  the  one  hand  and  the  unions  on  the 
other,  are  to  make  it  a rule  of  the  business  which  they  are  going  to  enforce  to  the 
best  of  their  ability,  that  is  all  that  can  be  done.  Of  course,  the  union,  having  a 
membership,  presumably,  that  extends  far  beyond  those  who  become  members  of 


42 


Ihe  association,  will  have  that  obligation  to  every  one  to  see,  so  far  as  they  are 
able  to  enforce  the  law  which  they  have  made  by  mutual  agreement  with  you,  and 
you  will  get  that  protection,  as  far  as  they  are  able  to  give  it.  I mean  the  protec- 
tion from  unfair  competition. 

MR.  COHEN : I assume  that  when  we  get  to  the  question  of  working  out  the 

machinery  for  carrying  it  into  effect,  we  may  be  able  to  devise  the  details. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : That  may  be  true. 

MR.  LONDON ; That  no  work  shall  be  given  by  the  firm  to  be  done  at  the 
homes  of  the  people — that  is  the  principle. 

MR.  BLOCH : I want  to  say  this,  that  whatever  agreement  may  be  reached 

at  this  conference  will  naturally  become  the  ruling  factor  throughout  the  trade, 
whether  they  are  members  of  the  organization  or  not,  and  therefore  we  can  well 
afford  to  say  that  we  will  insist  on  our  members  not  taking  any  of  this  work  home. 

MR.  COHEN : It  is  my  hope  that  what  we  do  agree  upon  will  be  the  stand- 

ard of  the  industry,  but  in  addition  to  a hope,  1 want  something  practical. 

MR.  ROSENBERG;  Yes,  let  us  have  some  practical  solution. 

THE  CHAIRMAN ; It  will  become  the  law  for  the  unions,  I understand, 
anyhow,  which  they  must  seek  to  enforce  to  the  best  of  their  ability.  Now,  is  there 
anything  further  to  be  said  on  this  second  subject  of  the  work  in  tenement  houses? 
Mr.  Cohen,  any  one  on  your  side? 

MR.  SCHLESSINGER ; I want  to  say  one  word  about  the  competition  that 
counsel  tried  to  bring  in.  The  smaller  men  have  competed  against  the  larger 
members,  or  against  the  members  of  your  association.  If  the  members  of  your 
association  will  not  go  into  this  business  of  tenement  house  labor,  why,  it  would 
be  possible  for  the  members  of  your  association  to  compete  against  the  smaller 
ones.  I will  tell  you  why.  Three  hundred  and  fifty  manufacturers  of  the  smaller 
ones,  and  a good  many  larger  manufacturers,  have  signed  this  agreement.  They 
agree  not  to  give  out  any  work  in  tenement  houses,  although  tenement  house  labor 
may  be  cheaper  for  them.  Three  hundred  and  fifty  or  four  hundred  have  signed 
it  already.  Now,  if  your  organization  is  not  signing  against  tenement  house  labor 
it  is  impossible  for  them  to  compete  against  the  smaller  manufacturer. 

MR.  COHEN : I catch  your  point,  Mr.  Schlessinger,  but  the  difficulty  I see 

with  it  is  that  these  three  hundred  and  fifty  manufacturers  may  contain  in  them 
some  people  that  Mr.  Rosenberg  refers  to,  and  you  have  no  means  of  enforcing 
the  obligations  against  them. 

MR.  SCHLESSINGER;  There  is  only  one  person  who  can  enforce  this  tene- 
ment house  rule,  and  that  is  the  employer.  If  the  employer  will  not  give  them  the 
work  they  cannot  do  it. 

liHE  CHAIRMAN ; I think  that  point  is  clearly  understood  now.  Now, 
shall  we  go,  then,  to  the  third  subject  for  discussion,  and  that  is  the  exaction  of 
security.  Mr.  London,  are  you  going  to  speak? 

MR.  LONDON ; Yes.  As  to  the  subject  of  security,  as  the  poor  man’s  law- 
yer, and  as  I know  of  hundreds  of  cases  where  manufacturers  have  exacted  secur- 
ity, I want  to  say  that  I know  personally  of  hundreds  of  cases  where  security  is 
exacted  from  employees.  As  a rule,  this  security,  in  the  contracts  which  are 
drawn  up  between  employers  and  the  men,  in  very  many  instances,  I must  say,  to 
the  shame  of  the  members  of  the  bar — that  contracts  for  the  employment  of  work- 
ing men  are  dra^vn  up  dishonestly,  so  that  these  contracts  are  absolutely  worthless. 
Security  is  exacted  from  employees,  and  one  of  the  conditions  of  forfeiture  of  the 
security  is  that  the  men  will  not  join  the  union  or  not  go  out  on  strike  or  not  stop 
working  during  the  time  of  a strike,  so  that  this  is  a serious  evil  in  the  trade.  Of 
course,  among  the  small  manufacturers,  the  security  constitutes  a considerable  por- 
tion of  the  capital  with  which  they  do  business.  Among  the  larger  manufacturers 

43 


the  security  is  obtained  from  the  men,  or,  in  other  words,  a portion  of  the  men’s 
wages  is  deducted  every  week,  in  order  to  bind  the  men  not  to  belong  to  a union — 
not  to  join  a union  or  not  to  go  out  on  strike,  and  it  is  this  thing  that  we  would 
like  to  see  done  away  with. 

MR.  COHEN : I may  say  now,  Mr.  Chairman,  in  answer  to  that,  that  as  far 

as  our  association  is  concerned  we  will  agree  not  to  put  into  any  contract,  as  a con- 
dition of  forfeiture  of  the  security,  that  the  men  cannot  join  the  union  or  cannot  go 
out  on  strike.  We  think  those  things  should  be  eliminated. 

MR.  CHAIRMAN : That,  of  course,  removes  that  particular  objection.  The 

main  question,  I suppose,  is  as  to  whether  security  shall  be  exacted  at  all.  I sup- 
pose the  other  questions  of  exacting  security  for  reasons  of  a strike  or  joining  the 
union  would  more  appropriately  come  under  the  head  of  discrimination,  but  let  us 
take  up  the  broad  question  of  exacting  security  generally. 

MR.  COHEN  : I do  not  think  we  can  make  any  general  rule  regarding  that. 

I agree  with  Mr.  London  that  it  is  to  the  shame  of  the  bar  that  unscrupulous 
lawyers  have  drawn  these  agreements,  so  that  they  work  in  a great  many  instances 
to  the  advantage  of  the  small  manufacturer,  and  it  is  unfair  to  have  in  a contract 
that  a man  shall  not  join  the  union  or  go  out  on  strike,  the  penalty  if  he  does  it  to 
be  the  forfeiture  of  his  security ; but  you  must  understand,  sir,  that  in  our  industry 
■\'/e  have  a large  number  of  very  high-priced  employees,  with  whom  we  make  con- 
tracts, and  we  have — I happen  to  know  that  that  question  has  come  up  in  a good 
many  cases,  how  we  could  be  sure,  if  we  gave  them  a yearly  contract,  for  which 
we  are  responsible,  of  course,  and  they  are  not  pecuniarily  responsible — how  we 
could  be  sure — you  see,  they  are  mostly  judgment  proof — and  they  have  volun- 
teered to  leave  a portion  of  their  salary  as  security  for  their  continuance.  Now,  in 
those  cases  I think  the  contract  should  be  a reasonable  contract,  and  I think  the 
remedy  for  the  situation — I am  talking  without  having  reflected  very  carefully — 
I think  the  remedy  for  the  situation  is,  if  we  have  a grievance  committee,  that  in 
case  any  contract  is  offered  to  any  of  your  people  that  appeal  to  you  or  your  coun- 
sel as  unreasonable,  that  that  matter  be  taken  up  with  the  grievance  committee 
with  a view  to  formulating  a contract  that  will  be  reasonable. 

THE  CHAIRMy\N : You  might,  I suppose,  also,  if  you  agree  that  there  are 

circumstances  where  security  should  be  given,  to  provide  for  a standard  contract 
to  cover  the  ordinary  cases. 

MR.  LONDON : I think  that  the  only  occasion  when  an  employer  is  justified 

in  exacting  security  from  a laborer  is  when  the  work  is  of  particular  delicacy  or 
involves  extreme  knowledge,  or  there  is  a possibility  that  the  goods  may  be  dam- 
aged. That  is  the  only  possible  case  in  which  an  employer'  may  be  justified  in 
getting  security. 

THE  CHAIRMAN  ; What  do  you  say  about  the  case  put  by  Mr.  Cohen  of  the 
time  contract? 

MR.  LONDON : Now,  let  me  say  when  we  have  come  to  that,  that  the  giving 

of  time  contracts  has  been  one  of  the  greatest  demoralizing  factors  in  the  trade. 
I want  to  be  perfectly  honest  with  every  man  who  is  here.  The  giving  of  these 
contracts  has  been  one  of  the  methods  of  opposing  the  union,  or  of  opposing  all 
efforts  on  the  part  of  the  working  people  to  form  an  organization.  Two  or  three 
individuals  in  a factory  are  picked  out.  They  are  given  contracts.  They  are  pre- 
ferred over  anybody  else,  and  of  course  they  deposit  some  security. 

MR.  COHEN ; May  I make  a suggestion  ? 

MR.  LONDON:  Yes. 

MR.  COHEN : We  are  now  proceeding  upon  the  theory  that  nobody  is  going 

to  destroy  the  union. 


44 


MR.  LONDON : I want  to  say  that  the  giving  of  security  and  the  giving 

of  these  contracts  is  part  and  parcel  of  one  evil  that  prevails  in  the  trade. 
That  is  part  of  the  system  of  discrimination. 

MR.  COHEN : May  I say  now,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  that  all  becomes  past 

history  now,  enlightening  for  the  present  understanding  of  the  situation,  but  as- 
suming that  it  was  a means,  which,  of  course,  we  cannot  concede  that  it  was  prac- 
ticed so  far  as  our  members  are  concerned — but  even  assuming  that  it  was  a means 
of  opposition  to  the  union — the  fact  that  we  are  ready  now  to  work  in  co-operation 
with  the  union,  if  we  can  do  it,  indicates  as  clearly  to  these  gentlemen  as  we  possibly 
can  that  there  is  no  intention  on  our  part  to  draw  any  contracts  that  have  for  their 
basis  injury  to  the  union.  We  do  find  it  necessary,  sir,  and  of  course  we  will  find 
it  necessary  with  non-union  men — I mean  we  will  have  to  employ  people  that  do 
not  belong  to  the  union — we  do  find  it  necessary  to  have  contracts  that  are  bound 
by  some  kind  of  indemnity,  and  we  cannot  make  a general  rule  with  regard  to  that 
as  far  as  we  can  see  at  the  present  time,  but  if  there  are  to  be  any  provisions  of 
the  general  form  of  contract  which  is  in  vogue,  to  which  Mr.  London  has  taken 
exception,  or  any  member  takes  exception,  such  as  those  already  expressed,  and 
tliey  are  unjust  conditions,  we  are  ready  to  see  to  it  that  our  members  will  not 
sign  any  such,  contracts,  or  will  not  insist  upon  their  employees  signing  such  con- 
tracts. 

THE  CLI AIRMAN  : Let  me  ask  this  question  : You  gave — assigned  as  a rea- 

son— possibly  as  the  reason  for  requiring  security,  that  you  needed  protection  in 
the  case  of  time  contracts — a year  or  a similar  period.  Do  you — did  you — mean 
to  limit  the  propriety  of  security  to  those  cases  where  a time  contract  is  given? 

MR.  COHEN : Well,  not  merely  time  contracts,  in  the  sense  of  being  long 

contracts,  but  supposing  a man  comes  into  our  place  who  is  especially  a skilled 
worker,  and  we  offer  him  a very  substantial  salary  for  the  purpose  of  having  him, 
there  is  no  way  of  protecting  ourselves  against  him,  except  by  indemnity  of  some 
sort  or  other. 

THE  CHAIRMAN  : Well,  what  is  the  protection?  I am  asking  for  informa- 

tion merely,  because  I am  not  familiar  with  it. 

MR.  COHEN;  It  must  bq 

THE  CHAIRMAN : I mean  protecton  against  his  going  away — against 

leaving  you  ? 

MR.  COHEN;  Yes,  that  is  the  protection. 

THE  CHAIRM  AN  ; d'hen,  therefore,  it  would  only  be  in  the  case  of  an 
agreement  for  a definite  period  of  time  that  that  would  become  of  importance? 

MR.  COHEN;  You  start  up  your  factory  at  the  beginning  of  the  season. 
You  have  there  a group  of  men  who  are  necessary — as  necessary  as  your 
capital  or  yo^ur  machinery.  Now,  these  men  have  come  to  you  and  said. 
“We  will  come  and  work  all  of  this  season.”  Well,  now,  you  want  to  be 
sure  that  your  staff  is  going  to  remain.  At  the  height  of  the  season  you 
cannot  go  out  and  get  more  men  for  that  particular  job,  just  as  you  could  get 
more  stenographers  or  typewriters.  Therefore,  our  people  have  to  be  sure 
that  the  people  they  are  taking  on  at  the  beginning  of  the  season  will  stay 
with  them. 

THE  CHAIRMAN ; That  is  on  the  theory  of  a time  contract? 

MR.  COHEN ; If  you  call  that  a time  contract,  it  is. 

MR.  LENNON ; Mr.  Chairman,  I v/ould  like  to  say  a few  words  on  this 
question,  if  I am  not  butting  in  at  the  wrong  time.  The  unions,  if  they  have 
any  object  in  existence  at  all — if  there  is  any  reason  rvhy  they  should  exist — 
is  toi  provide  for  collective  bargaining  instead  of  individual  bargaining — 
collective  contracts  instead  of  individual  contracts.  This  is  the  United 


45 


States.  Of  course,  I am  entirely  without  education,  and  never  had  an  oppor- 
tunity to  go  to  school,  but  I say  that  an  American — not  where  he  was  born,  if 
he  wants  to  be  an  American — has  a right  to  quit  his  job  whenever  he  pleases, 
with  or  without  reason,  at  any  time,  and  the  employer  has  an  equal  right  at 
any  time  to  discharge  an  employee,  with  or  without  reason,  unless  rhe  reason 
would  be  assigned  that  he  was  a member  of  some  organization.  That  is 
Americanism,  and  that  is  manhood,  and  the  idea  at  this  time  when  here  is  the 
education  that  has  gone  on  through  the  Civic  Federation,  through  the  philan- 
thropic people  of  this  country  who  have  had  to  do  with  this  great  industrial 
question,  of  trying  to  maintain  the  idea  of  individual  contracts  as  against 
collective  contracts  by  an  organization.  Well,  gentlemen,  I could  not  stand 
for  it.  I want  to  tell  you  perfectly  frankly,  I believe  that  the  union  contract 
is  the  best  contract  in  the  world,  and  will  best  protect  the  emplo3'er,  and  as 
a sample  of  how  it  will  protect  the  employers,  I am  going  to  refer  you  to  a 
case  that  Mr.  Brandeis 

MR.  COHEN : 1 should  hate  to  call  Mr.  Lennon  to  order,  but  we  have 

pledged  ourselves  to  expedition. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I think  Mr.  Cohen  is  right. 

MR.  ROSENBERG:  Mr.  Cohen,  whenever  he  has  the  opportunity,  always 

tries  to  show  what  they  are  going  to  do  with  the  non-union  men,  so  it  shows 
lhat  it  is  the  intention  of  the  manufacturers  to  make  or  to — what  shall  I say 
—to  induce  men  to  be  non-union  men,  and  to  give  them  contracts  in  prefer- 
ence to  our  union  men. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : I do  not  think  that  is  so. 

MR.  COHEN : I do  not  think  that  is  a fair  statement. 

MR.  ROSENBERG:  So  far,  I would  not  like  to  mention  anything  about 

union  or  non-union — there  is  no  such  thing  as  non-union  men  in  existence  at 
the  present  day,  and  I can  assure  you  gentlemen  right  here  that  any  man 
who  goes  back  to  work  will  be  a union  man,  and  I want  to  go  even  still 
further — our  men  will  surely  not  work  with  none-union  men,  regardless  of  any 
contracts.  We  cannot  be  responsible  for  them.  If  they  refuse  to  work  with 
non-union  men,  it  will  not  be  our  fait. 

M R.  COHEN : Do  I understand  it  to  be  the  position  of  the  delegates  to 

this  conference  that  if  we  agree  upon  the  terms  of  settlement  of  the  griev- 
ances, that  the  union  men  will  refuse  to  go  back  and  permit  us  to  employ 
members — such  employees  who  are  not  members  of  the  union,  as  we  care  to? 

THE  CHAIRMAN : I do  not  understand  that  that  question  or  that 

statement  of  Mr.  Rosenberg’s  is  before  this  conference.  It  is  perfectly  clear 
that  it  will  be  the  effort,  I suppose,  of  the  union  to  see  that  everybody  in  your 
employ  is  a union  man,  and  that  is  their  business,  to  try  to  get  as  large  a per- 
centage of  all  the  workers,  if  they  are  not  all  now,  as  thej'  say,  union  men, 
to  make  them  so.  Now,  I do  not  understand  that  anything  that  klr.  Cohen 
has  said  here  assumes  that  his  clients  are  going  to  endeavor  to  introduce  non- 
union as  distinguished  from  union  men.  I understand  Mr.  Cohen’s  position 
to  be  merely  one  that  he  recognizes  what  has  been  in  the  past — a fact,  and 
which  may  well  be,  and  doubtless  in  many  places  will  be  the  fact,  that  there 
are  non-union  men  Avorking.  Now,  they  may  be  working  because  you  do  not 
succeed  in  your  general  plan  of  making  all  men  union  men’,  but  if  the}’  Avork, 
you  have  got  to  take  care  of  them  in  some  way,  and  I do  not  see  that  there 
can  be  any  occasion  to  shut  one’s  eyes  to  what  is  the  fact.  If  it  is  not  a fact, 
then  any  of  these  difficulties  relating  to  non-union  men  will  not  arise  : if  it 
is  a fact,  Ave  have  got  to  take  care  of  them. 

MR.  BLOCH:  I want  to  say — brother  Rosenberg  expresses  his  opinion 

at  this  time,  and  hN  opinion  might  be  right,  but  I Avant  to  say  this,  about 

46 


this  question  of  security.  We,  from  experience,  know  that  it  has  created  un- 
fair competition  among  emplovees.  We  know  that  men  have  been  engaged 
at  certain  figures  less  than  a cc  mpetent  mechanic,  and  they  have  been  given 
agreements  because  they  work  cheaper  and  longer  hojrs  under  different  con- 
ditions, and  by  do  ng  away  with  that  system  of  deposit,  or  of  holding  part 
of  his  salary  for  forfeiture,  that  v;ould  prevent  that  untair  competition.  We 
are  not  organized  for  the  purpose  of  injuring  any  particular  person.  We 
are  not  organized  for  the  purpose  of  injuring  anybody — any  juanufacturcr. 
We  are  merely  organized  for  one  purpose,  that  is,  the  equalization  of  condi- 
tions among  the  workers,  the  same  as  the  manufactu^'e-s  are  organized  to 
eqitulize  conditions  among  then'iiclves.  We  have  got  to  refer  to  that  un- 
scrupulous employer.  He  has  at  all  times  taken  advantage  of  that  situation, 
of  the  deposit  system,  and  er  gaged  men,  so-called,  u ider  duress,  to  compel 
them  to  work  for  less  money  and  loi  longer  hours,  writ  a promise  of  longer 
work,  and  for  the  fulfillment  of  th.at  they  have  given  them  a contract.  I 
believe  that  to  be  unfair  to  the  nicn  that  we  want  to  ace.  get  standard  wages 
and  standard  hours,  and  therefore  we  are  unalterably  opposed  to  that  deposit 
system. 

MR.  DYCHE;  I w^ant  to  point  out  to  you  that  there  is  a law  in  our  organ- 
fzation.  We  do  not  allows  any  of  our  members  to  give  security  or  to  make 
individual  contracts.  He  cannot  remain  a member  of  our  organization  if  he 
does  that.  And  any  efllort  on  the  part  of  a manufacturer  to  induce  a man  to 
do  that  is  in  line  with  attempting  to  break  up  our  organization.  1'hat  is  not 
allowed  in  our  organization. 

MR.  COHiEN : Does  that  express  the  view  of  the  delegates  on  behalf  of 

the  union? 

MR.  LENNC)N : Mr.  President,  I desire  to  say  on  behalf  of  our  commit- 

tee, that  we  wall  not  enter  upon  any  agreement  that  requires  individual  de- 
posits from  the  members. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : That,  I understand,  is  part  of  your  constitution  or 
by-laws  ? 

MR.  LENNON:  Yes,  sir. 

MR.  COHEN : I should  like  to  have  a copy  of  the  provision  of  tlie  union 

agreement.  I would  like  to  have  it  spread  upon  the  record. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Rosenberg,  have  you  that  provision?  If  you 

have,  read  it  to  the  stenographer. 

MR.  COHEN : I should  like  to  have  the  exact  language,  because  I w^ant 

to  know  what  conditions  we  have  to  meet. 

MR.  LONDON : I desire  to  say  that  it  is  not  only  because  the  constitution 

■ — the  constitution  requires  it.  If  there  was  no  constitution  in  existence,  it 
is  a question  of  principle  wuth  us,  and  it  destroys  the  very  basis  of  an  organ- 
ization if  w^e  will  permit  individual  members  to  enter  into  agreements  which 
will  be  different  from  those  which  the  union  will  enter  into  with  the  em- 
ployer. That  is  the  sum  and  substance  of  it.  It  is  not  on  account  of  the  con- 
stitution, because  constitutions  can  be  amended,  but  it  is  a matter  of  prin- 
ciple with  the  organization.  It  destroys  the  very  essence  of  the  organization. 

MR.  COHEN:  Have  3^011  got  the  provision? 

MR.  ROSENBERG:  Yes. 

MR.  COHEN:  Is  this  it?  (Reading)  “Section  4,  Article  15.  No  person 

working  under  a contract  with  an  employer  is  eligible  to  membership  in  llie 
international  or  any  local  union  or  sub-local  union.  Any  member  signing  and 
accepting  such  contract  shall  be  expelled  from  membership  in  the  international 
and  its  affiliated  unions,  or  sub-local  unions.” 


47 


Now,  may  I ask  a pointed  question,  because  it  is  an  important  matter, 
whether  the  gentlemen  representing  the  unions,  are  agreed  upon  the  proposi- 
tion that  the  adjustment  of  grievances  in  this  conference  on  this  topic  cannot 
be  had  except  upon  the  condition  that  we  agree  on  our  part  that  no  contracts 
be  made  with  individual  employees,  and  that  no  security  be  taken  from  in- 
dividual employees? 

THE  CHAIRMAN : I do  not  think,  Mr.  Cohen,  that  that  question  had 

better  be  pressed.  It  seems  to  me  that  it  is  not  wise,  as  we  go  through  the 
eleven  S])ecific  subjects  of  discussion,  to  consider  whether  one  or  the  other 
of  that  eleven  is  an  inevitable  condition  of  conference,  I think  it  will  tend  to 
a more  successful  result  in  our  whole  conference,  if  we  agree  or  disagree  on 
any  one,  and  then  when  we  have  passed  through  the  eleven  different  heads, 
consider  what  the  situation  is,  and  see  whether  there  are  insurmountable 
obstacles. 

MR.  COHEN : I accept  the  Chairman’s  judgment  on  that. 

MR.  POLAKOFE:  I would  like  to  add,  Mr.  Chairman,  why  are  the  manu- 

facturers asking  for  agreements?  When  the  season  begins,  there  are  only  a 
few  working  men  in  the  shops.  They  are  what  are  called  the  old  hands  in 
the  shop.  Nov.'-,  they  are  the  price  makers.  They  are  making  the  prices  on 
the  garments.  They  belong  actually  to  the  manufacturers.  All  xhe  workers 
in  the  season  are  making  the  garments  as  made  by  the  few  men  working  in 
the  shops  on  contract.  The  other  people  in  the  shop,  they  do  not  know  if 
the37-  liave  contracts  or  not,  and,  therefore,  we  are  opposing  the  contract 
system. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Is  there  any  other  gentleman  who  has  an}'thing  to 

say  on  this  subject  of  exacting  security? 

MR.  ROSENBERG:  It  is  the  custom  with  nearly  each  and  every  manu- 

facturer to  have  half  a dozen  men  working  on  contracts  for  another  reason. 
If  they  cannot  agree  v'ith  their  employees,  who  are  mostly  piece  workers,  on 
prices  on  certain  garments — so  they  say  “Don’t  make  that  garment;  this  ga**- 
ment  will  be  made  by  the  week.”  Our  men,  those  piece  workers,  who  have  no 
contract,  are -thinking  themselves,  if  this  is  the  case,  they  will  simply  sit  in  the 
shop  and  see  the  rest  of  them  piled  up  with  work  wiiile  they  are  sitting  in  the 
shop,  and  they  will  make  as  little  as  $8  or  $io  a week,  consequently  there  are 
half  a dozen  contract  men  in  the  shop,  and  the  rest  of  the  e'mployees 
are  compelled  to  accept  any'  kind  of  price  offered  by'  the  manufacturer. 
Furthermore,  the  manufacturers  in  the  cloak  trade  know  it  that  their  gar- 
ments which  pay's  sometimes  a quarter  more  than  it  is  actually'  worth — it 
happens  so  that  the  garment  is  made  of  certain  material,  and  the  manu- 
facturer sells  them  for  a better  price,  so  he  can  afford  to  have  them  made  a 
little  bit  better,  so  he  can  afford  to  pay'  15  or  25  or  50  cents  more  for  that 
garment,  and  the  operator  or  tailor,  or  vdioever  figures  that  price,  figures  it 
he  has  one  garment,  say.  No.  i,  which  cannot  be  made  for  the  price  fixed 
by'  the  firm,  they  will  consider  that  garment  No.  2 is  25  cents  more;  conse- 
quently, if  the  operator  gets  No.  i and  No.  2 together,  he  will  turn  out  a 
week’s  wages.  The  designers  and  the  foremen  know  this  scheme.  They'  go 
to  work  and  take  all  of  those  garments  which  pay  better,  and  turn  them  over 
to  those  who  are  working  by  the  v'eek,  and  the  piece  worker  is  actually'  suf- 
fering and  making  none  but  the  garments  of  the  cheaper  prices.  That  is  whv 
we  object  to  any  week  workers  in  the  shop,  except  the  simple  hands. 

• MR.  SCHLESSINGER : I want  to  be  fair  with  you  gentlemen.  M'e  are 

organized  for  the  purpose  of  bettering  the  condition  of  the  people  we  repre- 
sent. We  are  not  organized  for  the  purpose  of  doing  mischief.  We  are 

48 


organized  for  the  purpose  of  bettering  the  condition  of  the  people — the  work- 
ing people.  The  manufacturers  are  generally  not  giving  any  contracts  in 
times  of  peace;  the  manufacturers  are  giving  contracts  only  in  times  when 
they  see  there  is  a feeling  of  unrest  in  their  shops.  When  the  season  comes 
around  and  most  of  the  people  employed  in  the  trade  are  working  at  the 
business,  then  as  soon  as  some  of  the  manufacturers  see  that  there  is  a 
feeling  of  unrest  in  the  shop,  that  people  are  getting  ready  to  settle  the  pi  ice 
of  piece  work,  the  manufacturer  picks  out  four  or  five  men,  the  more  intelli- 
gent men  in  the  shop,  and  gives  them  contracts,  and  they  are  checking  the 
movement  for  increasing  the  prices  on  the  piece  work;  of  settling  them. 
That  is  when  the  contracts  are  given ; not  in  the  time  of  peace,  but  when  they 
see  that  there  is  a feeling  of  unrest  in  the  factory.  If  they  are  permitted  to 
do  it,  it  simply  means  they  will  stop  the  movement  on  the  part  of  the  work- 
ing people  to  have  the  price  settled  when  the  season  comes  around.  W c 
are  against  signing  contracts,  because  signed  contracts  are  only  given  by  the 
manufacturers  with  the  view  of  stopping  the  efforts  of  the  piece  workers  to 
get  an  increase  in  wages. 

THE  CHAIRMAN  : I want  to  call  the  attention  of  you  gentlem.en  to  the 

fact  that  while  the  subject  of  this  particular  article  of  discussion  was  the 
exacting  of  security,  very  little  has  been  said  about  exacting  security,  and 
this  has  been  discussed  mainly  on  the  question  of  individual  contracts. 

MR.  COHEN : A subject  which  we  did  not  think  was  going  to  be  discussed 

here. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : There  was  no  reason  to  think  there  would  be,  front  the 
enumeration. 

MR.  COHEN : I did  not  expect  to  discuss  the  entire  matter  of  contracts.  We 

expected  to  discuss  only  the  exacting  of  security.  As  to  the  making  of  contracts 
we  ffnd  nothing  in  the  stated  grievances  on  that  subject,  and  we  are  not  prepared 
to  discuss  that  now. 

MR.  SCHLESSINGER : Security  is  something  that  goes  hand  in  hand  with 

contracts.  If  there  is  no  contract,  there  is  no  security.  There  is  security  wher- 
ever there  is  a contract.  When  we  speak  of  security  we  must  touch  the  contract 
first.  They  are  two  sister  things ; they  go  hand  in  hand. 

MR.  LENNON : They  are  one  and  the  same  subject. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Is  there  anything  to  be  said  on  the  question  of  security 

further  ? 

MR.  COHEN ; Well,  I do  not  want  to  go  into  the  fundamental  question  at 
this  time,  Mr.  Chairman,  for  the  reason  that  you  suggested  before,  but  I can  very 
readily  see  that  there  are  m.atters  involved  in  the  suggestions  that  have  been  made 
on  the  other  side  of  the  table  that  would  prolong  this  conference  very  seriously. 
We  have  come  prepared,  as  we  have  stated,  to  discuss  the  matters  that  were  stated 
in  the  proposition,  and  to  eliminate  certain  other  matters  from  discussion. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Now,  one  of  these  matters  that  I understood  you  were 

prepared  to  eliminate  is  that  next  subject  of  discussion  (a)  the  discrimination 
against  union  men. 

MR.  COHEN : On  that  subject  we  desire  to  state  as  emphatically  as  we  can. 

that  we  do  not  intend  to  discriminate  against  union  men,  and  are  prepared  on  our 
behalf  to  discipline  any  member  of  our  association  who  discriminates  against 
union  men. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : I do  not  see,  Mr.  London,  how  anything  more  can  be 

said  as  to  that. 

MR.  SCHLESSINGER : If  a man  is  discharged,  and  the  man  feels  that  he 

was  discharged  becouse  the  employer  has  discriminated  against  him,  what  will 
be  done? 


49 


THE  CHAIRMAN : I will  undertake  to  answer  that.  That  is  a subject  which 

would  come  up  in  connection  with  the  last  topic,  the  methods  of  enforcing  the 
agreement,  and  in  connection  with  that,  the  subject  will  be  taken  up. 

MR.  SCHLESSINGER : For  instance,  if  a man  is  not  getting  as  much  wages 

as  the  next  fellow — we  are  speaking  of  piece  workers  now — for  instance,  if  one 
man  is  not  getting  as  much  work  as  the  next  man  does,  and  the  employer  claims 
that  the  reason  he  is  not  getting  as  much  work  is  because  he  is  not  as  competent 
as  the  next  man,  while  the  union  men  claim  that  the  reason  is  not  incompetency, 
but  the  reason  is  that  he  is  connected  with  a union,  that  he  is  a union  man 

THE  CHAIRMAN : That  is  the  same  question — discrimination,  which  would 
come  up  for  consideration  under  the  last  heading. 

MR.  SCHLESSINGER:  What  discrimination  do  you  mean? 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Discrimination  in  any  way.  That  is,  making  a man — 

in  the  first  place  it  would  be  by  not  employing  him  or  giving  him  less  favorable 
conditions  of  work ; any  way  of  penalizing  or  punishing  him  would  be  discirmina- 
tion,  and  it  is  agreed  by  the  manufacturers,  it  seems  to  me,  to  the  proposition  as 
fully  as  anybody  could  agree  to  it,  that  there  shall  be  no  discrimination  against 
any  man  because  he  is  a member  of  the  union.  Now,  it  is  a question,  therefore, 
of  the  method  of  enforcing  that  agreement.  The  agreement  is  given  in  the  fullest 
terms  that  it  will  be  possible  to  make. 

MR.  COHEN : Yes. 

THE  CHAIRMAN  : What  I understand  the  natural  meaning  of  discrimina- 
tion to  be — and  Mr.  Cohen  will  correct  me  if  I am  wrong — it  is  to  treat  any  man 
in  any  respect  because  he  is  a member  of  a union. 

MR.  COHEN : That  is  exactly  my  understanding. 

MR.  ROSENBERG:  Is  it  not  a fact  that  some  manufacturers  who  are  right 

here  present  at  this  conference  have  a system  whereby  the  moment  it  is  found 
out  that  a certain  man  has  joined  the  union  he  is  fired  out  of  their  employment  on 
the  next  day? 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Now,  I will  undertake  to  answer  that  proposition. 

Whether  that  is  the  fact,  or  has  been  the  fact  in  the  past  is  a matter  that  is  imma- 
terial to  the  discussion  now  before  us,  because  Mr.  Cohen  agrees  on  behalf  of  the 
manufacturers  that  there  shall  be  no  discrimination  in  the  future,  and,  conse- 
quently, if  such  has  been  the  practice,  it  will  cease.  If  it  has  not  been  the  prac- 
tice in  that  particular  establishment  that  you  have  in  mind,  there  is  no  occasion 
to  change  the  situation,  but  I do  not  think  we  would  gain  anything  by  any  attack 
upon  what  might  have  been  the  practice  or  inclination  of  any  individual  manu- 
facturer in  the  past,  if  Mr.  Cohen  gives  his  adherence,  as  he  has  given  in  the  full- 
est terms,  to  the  proposition.  It  is  purely  a question  of  providing  the  means  for 
enforcing  the  agreement  which  has  been  made. 

MR.  COHEN : That  is  right. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : We  can  now  pass  from  the  fourth  to  the  fifth  proposition 

— the  blacklisting  of  active  union  men.  Now,  I understood  Mr.  Cohen  to  sav  on 
behalf  of  the  manufacturers  that  no  man  should  be  blacklisted  on  account  of  his 
union  activities ; that  also  is  comprehensive  and  full,  and  there  remains  nothing 
more  to  be  said  on  that,  so  far  as  I can  see. 

MR.  COHEN : We  are  willing  to  discipline  any  member  of  our  organization 

who  is  shown  to  be  guilty  of  that  practice. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : And  I presume  that  includes  also,  necessarily,  to  en- 
deavor, so  far  as  you  can,  to  suppress  the  practice  in  an  individual  case,  if  it 
should  arise? 

MR.  COHEN:  Yes. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : I do  not  see  that  anybody  could  ask  more  than  Mr. 

Cohen  has  given  us  assurance  of  in  this  matter. 

50 


MR.  LONDON : So  far  as  the  principle  is  concerned. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Yes,  and  the  rest  of  it  is  merely  a question  of  enforcing 

it.  Now,  the  next  proposition  for  discussion,  the  sixth,  is  overtime  on  night  work, 
it  is  called.  Mr.  London,  will  you  state  what  you  have  in  mind  to  suggest  on  that 
subject? 

MR.  LONDON : The  overtime  and  night  work,  I wish  to  state  that  in  the 

cloak  trade,  while  the  old  sweat  shop  system  has  been  to  some  extent  modified, 
people  are  compelled  to  work  fifteen  and  sixteen  hours  a day.  Men  and  women 
are  worked  to  death,  without  regard  to  life,  without  regard  to  safety,  or  without 
regard  to  health.  That  it  is  justified  by  that  fierce  competiion  which  prevails 
among  the  manufacturers — people  attempt  to  justify  it,  but  it  is  a practice  which, 
in  the  interests  of  humanity,  if  not  in  the  interests  of  organized  labor,  must  be 
stopped.  The  hours  of  labor  must  be  regulated.  There  is  no  excuse  for  contin- 
uing the  present  practice.  Now,  in  our  contract  which  we  have  submitted  to  the 
trade,  and  which  has  been  signed  by  hundreds  of  them  so  far,  several  hundred  so 
far,  we  have  attempted  to  regulate — to  suggest  a regulation  of  the  hours  of  labor 
in  the  following  manner. 

MR.  COHEN : Have  you  an  extra  copy  of  that  ? 

MR.  LONDON : I believe  we  have.  Mr.  Lennon,  you  have  an  extra  copy? 

(Paper  handed  to  Mr.  Cohen  by  Mr.  Lennon.) 

THE  CHAIRMAN : If  you  will  let  me  have  a copy,  too. 

(Paper  handed  to  the  Chairman  by  Mr.  London.) 

MR.  LONDON : The  following  shall  be  the  regular  hours  of  labor : Section 

3 of  the  contract — a working  week  shall  consist  of  48  hours  in  six  working  days. 
The  following  shall  be  the  regular  hours  of  labor.  On  the  first  five  working  days 
of  the  week,  from  8:00  A.  M.  to  12:00  noon;  from  12:45  P-  5:30  P.  M. 

Saturdays,  from  8:00  A.  M.  to  12:15  P.  M.,  and  then  the  following  paragraph 
which  is  connected  with  it — night  work — no  overtime  work  shall  be  permitted 
between  the  15th  day  of  November  and  the  15th  day  of  January,  and  during  the 
months  of  June  and  July.  During  the  rest  of  the  year  employees  may  be  re- 
quired to  work  overtime,  provided  the  employees  of  the  firm,  as  well  as  all  the  em- 
ployees of  the  outside  contractors  of  the  firm  are  engaged  to  the  full  capacity  of 
the  factory.  No  overtime  work  shall  be  permitted  on  Saturday,  nor  on  any  day 
for  more  than  two  and  a half  hours,  nor  before  8:00  A.  M.  or  after  8:00  P.  M. 
For  overtime  work  the  employee  shall  receive  double  the  usual  pay.  That  does 
not  bear  upon  it. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : I think  for  the  purpose  of  discussion  it  may  be  well  to 

call  attention  to  a division  of  this  question.  One  is  what  the  regular  limit  shall 
be  of  a day’s  work,  and  the  other  is,  what  limitation  shall  be  placed  upon  overtime. 
Of  course  there  are  several  different  subjects  to  be  discussed  under  the  second 
head,  but  I think  Mr.  London,  it  would  be — probably  expedite  our  discussion  of 
this,  if  now  that  you  have  stated  the  suggestion  of  the  Union,  Mr.  Cohen  should 
state  the  views  of  the  manufacturers  in  regard  to,  first,  the  limitation  of  the  regu- 
lar working  day,  and  secondly,  on  the  question  of  the  limitation  of  overtime. 

MR.  COHEN ; I should  like  to  ask  Mr.  London,  or  some  other  gentleman, 
some  questions  on  that. 

MR.  LONDON : I will  undertake  to  answer  as  many  as  I can. 

MR.  COHEN : You  say  the  people  in  your  industry  work  very  late  ? 

MR.  LONDON:  Yes. 

MR.  COHEN : How  many  hours  a day  do  they  work? 

MR.  LONDON : Unlimited  hours — day  and  night ; Saturday  and  Sunday ; 
seven  days  a week. 

MR.  COHEN : What  do  you  mean  by  unlimited ; that  is  vague  ? 

51 


MR.  LONDON : Well,  it  is  limited  to  the  physical  capacity  of  the  man  to 
stand  it. 

M:R.  COHEN:  Is  it  as  much  as  14  hours  a day? 

MR.  LONDON:  Yes. 

MR.  COHEN:  Is  it  as  much  as  16  hours  a day? 

MR.  LONDON:  Yes,  simply  unlimited. 

A VOICE:  As  long  as  the  gas  burns. 

MR.  LONDON:  They  come  at  5.00  A.  M.  and  stay  until  11:00  or  12:00 

at  night,  and  then  some  of  them  like  the  work  so  much  that  they  take  the 
work  home.  This  is  perhaps  the  only  contract  in  the  world  where  people 
ask  for  the  privilege  of  working  eleven  hours  a day,  and  in  the  year  1910. 
We  are  asking  for  the  privilege  of  working  eleven  hours  a day,  during  eight 
mouths  of  the  year,  because  the  conditions  in  the  trade  are  so  wild  that  we 
cannot  revolutionize  i1  or  do  everything  at  once.  We  ask  for  permission 
to  work  eleven  hours  a day. 

MR.  COHEN : I am  very  glad  to  hear  Mr.  London  say  that  we  cannot 

revolutionize  things  in  the  industry,  because  one  of  the  things  we  shall  not 
attempt  to  do  on  our  behalf  is  to  revolutionize  conditions  in  the  industry. 
If  we  approach  the  solution  of  these  difficulties,  with  the  understanding  that 
we  must  do  things  gradually,  it  is  a long  step  forward  in  the  decision  of  a 
great  many  troublesome  cjuestions,  and  will  enable  me  to  come  back  to  the 
conference  after  we  have  discussed  things,  with  the  hope  that  some  of  the 
suggestions  will  be  considered  rationally,  and  with  due  reflection,  and  with 
a recognition  of  the  thing  Mr.  London  has  just  said — that  we  cannot  revolu- 
tionize the  industry.  Now,  in  that  connection  may  I say  this — in  this  industry 
we  are  dealing  with  probably  the  most  thrifty  and  energetic  people  that  have 
ever  come  to  this  country.  The  fact  that  so  many  of  the  manufacturers  of  our 
city  in  this  industry  have  arisen  from  the  ranks,  indicates  very  clearly  that 
they  have  been  able  by  reason  of  their  energy^  to  accumulate  the  necessary 
capital  to  become  employers,  and  it  is  one  of  the  classics  of  our  industry 
that  the  striking  employee  of  five  years  ago  to-day  is  the  ungenerous  and 
unmagnanimous  boss  of  to-day.  It  is  one  of  the  conditions  of  the  industry. 
TIow,  one  of  the  things  that  we  cannot  revolutionize,  klr.  Chairman,  is  human 
i t o re,  and  the  human  nature  which  we  find  in  this  particular  industr}- 

i\IR.  LONDON:  I suggest  that  the  discussion  of  human  nature  be  elimi- 

nated. That  is  my  first  discourteous  interruption. 

'I HE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Cohen  was  saying  that  they  could  not  under- 

tcko  to  revolutionize  the  trade. 

MR.  COHEN:  I have  been  trained  to  understand  what  is  relevant  and 

material,  and  to  distinguish  between  rhetoric  and  fact,  and  I do  not  see  how 
we  can  meet  a situation  without  stating  a fact.  We  have  a situation  where 
the  human  nature  of  our  employees  is  such  that  on  our  part  we  have  a very 
serious  problem.  The  problem  must  be  considered  in  a very  broad  way 
by  the  people  around  this  table,  and  cannot  be  decided  hastily.  We  are 
dealing  with  a constantly  increasing  number  of  people,  who  are  coming  into 
the  industry,  and  we  are  dealing  with  the  constantly  increasing  number  of 
manufacturers  who  are  coming  into  the  industry.  If  we  regulate  our  fac- 
tories, open  our  doors  at  a certain  hour,  and  close  our  doors  at  a certain 
hour,  we  have  at  least  done  our  share  toward  fixing  tlie  price  of  labor,  but 
the  pieceworkei  knows  no  hours  of  labor  when  he  is  without  restraint,  and 
the  language  of  my  distinguished  friend,  Mr.  London,  or  any  other  lawyer 
put  upon  paper  in  any  declaration  that  could  be  made,  could  not  revolutionize 
our  industry  so  as  to  prevent  the  pieceworker  from  working  at  all  hours  of 

52 


the  night,  if  you  gave  him  any  opportunity  to  do  it,  and  1 venture  the  pre- 
diction, gentlemen,  that  no  matter  what  agreement  we  enter  into  as  to  the 
hours  of  labor  in  our  shops,  that  we  shall  have  more  to  contend  with  in  tne 
freedom  on  the  part  of  those  who  do  not  belong  to  our  organization  or  to 
yurs,  in  working  longer  than  those  hours  of  labor.  I must  say,  Mr.  Chairman, 
that  I am  not  very  optimistic  as  to  the  outcome  of  our  agreement  upon  this 
question.  We  can  observe,  on  our  part,  the  contract  which  we  shall  make, 
because  we  possess  the  keys  to  our  factories,  but  how  you  will  guarantee 
to  perform  on  the  part  of  your  people  that  they  will  not  work  at  piece  w'ork 
i6  or  i8  hours  a day,  outside  of  our  fatcories,  we  shall  be  very  interested 
to  learn  when  we  come  to  the  discussion  of  the  mechanical  means  of  arriving 
at  that  result.  Now,  so  far  as  the  specific  time  mentioned  is  concerned,  I 
understand  that  this  is  a debatable  subject,  and  I shall  take  that  up  with  my 
people.  I understand  that  the  proposition  is  contained  in  these  paragraphs. 
I will  give  you  a definite  answer  on  that  proposition  after  conferring  with 
my  clients. 

MR.  LONDON : That  is  satisfactory. 

MR.  COHEN:  I am  calling  to  your  attention,  sir,  as  counsel  for  your 

people,  to  the  most  difficult  problem  that  you  have  to  meet. 

MR.  BLOCH:  I want  to  say  with  reference  to  that  that  we  realize  that 

this  is  possibly  one  of  the  most  difficult  problems  that  we  will  have  among 
our  people.  We  realize  they  want  to  work  as  many  hours  as  possible  to  earn 
as  much  money  as  they  can.  We  also  realize  that  what  we  call  the  legitimate 
manufacturer  who  works  on  a nine  or  a nine  and  a half  hour  basis,  he  is 
put  to  a disadvantage  in  disposing  of  his  merchandise  for  this  reason.  To 
come  back  to  the  unscrupulous  employer  working  under  dieffrent  oenditions, 
that  is,  the  conditions  existing  in  his  place,  that  when  a buyer  happens  to 
patronize  one  of  our  more  fair  employers  who  happens  to  be  working  on  a 
nine  hour  basis,  arid  tries  to  place  an  order — a lo  or  14  day  order,  and  the 
employer  naturally  is  working  to  the  extent  of  his  capacity — finds  that  he 
is  handicapped.  This  same  buyer  is  in  a position  to  go  to  this  so  called 
unscrupulous  employer  again  and  place  his  order  there.  This  man  is  in  a 
position,  and  knows  that  the  people  who  work  for  him,  if  he  goes  to  them 
at  five  o’clock  and  says,  “I  have  accepted  an  order  for  certain  merchan- 
dise, and  have  to  have  it  out  in  10  days,”  he  knows  that  he  can  take  that 
order  and  turn  it  out,  because  they  will  work  at  night  or  any  other  time  to 
get  it  out.  There  is  no  one  that  can  change  or  improve  those  conditions 
any  better  than  a labor  organization,  because  if  we  curtail  the  hours  of  labor 
of  our  people  we  equalize  the  output  of  that  unfair  employer.  We  realize 
that  a fair  employer  is  up  against  a hard  game,  and  it  is  only  a matter  of 
time,  while  he  tries  to  be  fair  to  the  working  people  of  his  shop,  he  is  com- 
pelled to  compete  with  the  other  people,  and  to  put  to  that  disadvantage, 
and  we  are  therefore  trying  to  look  at  both  sides  of  the  question;  that  is, 
something  to  the  inteiest  of  the  manufacturer  and  the  employee  both,  and 
that  is  to  arrange  a stipulated  number  of  hours  that  the  people  can  be  em- 
ployed. We  will  enforce  our  end  of  it,  and  the  other  side  will  enforce  their 
end  of  it,  and  only  by  stipulating  the  number  of  hours  that  people  shall  work 
and  promising  enforcement  of  the  same  by  both  sides  can  we  actually  equalize 
or  try  to  equalize  these  conditions.  I do  not  feel  that  we  can  revolutionize 
the  trade  m a minute;  still  it  will  bring  some  good  results,  and  results  will 
be  shown  to  such  an  extent  that  the  trade  will  be  benefited  by  it. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I understand  that  Mr.  Cohen  has  already  agreed 

that  he  will  consider  that  with  his  committee — that  he  will  consider  with 


53 


them  the  number  of  hours  of  the  limit  to  which  the  day  may  be  limited  and 
the  question  of  overtime;  that  he  is  not  ready  now  to  make  a definite  sug- 
gestion; that  he  agrees  to  the  proposition  that  there  should  be  some  limit, 
and  that  it  is  a question  as  to  how  that  shall  be  enforced. 

MR.  BLOCH:  I merely  wanC to  ask  one  thing  of  counsel  on  the  other 

end,  that  they  take  into  consideration  this  universal  work. 

MR.  COHEN:  Mr.  Bloch  need  not  call  my  attention  to  this.  I want  to 

ask  Mr.  Bloch  this  question.  Do  I understand  you  to  say,  sir,  that  if  as  the 
result  of  this  conference  we  agree  upon  a stipulation  between  your  organiza- 
tion and  ours,  that  you  in  your  organization  are  prepared  to  enforce  by 
rigorous  discipline  against  your  members  the  observance  of  these  hours  of 
labor  ? 

MR.  BLOCH:  Yes. 

MR.  ROSENBERG:  We  can  do  it,  on  the  condition  that  the  manufac- 

turers will  also  agree  that  in  case  we  should  expel  any  members  for  not 
observing  the  eight  hour  day,  they  should  not  take  them  into  their  employ- 
ment. 

IVrR.  COHEN : We  will  agree  to  that,  whatever  the  hour  may  be.  That 

is,  I understand,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  we,  on  our  side,  may  proceed  in  the 
formulation  of  our  ideas  upon  this  hypothesis,  that  if  an  agreement  is  reached 
as  to  the  number  of  hours  and  the  overtime  as  what  we  believe  is  at  present 
a standard  to  which  the  trade  should  conform — that  if  we  agree  on  our  part 
to  discipline  our  members  for  violation  of  that  standard  or  rule,  the  Union 
on  its  part  will  agree  to  discipline  its  members  if  we  agree  on  our  part  not 
to  employ  in  any  of  our  shops  any  of  the  men  disciplined  by  the  Union. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : That  is  what  I understand. 

MR.  BLOCH:  That  is  right. 

MR.  LONDON:  Yes. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  me  see  if  I am  right  in  this  assumption,  that 

not  only  in  regard  to  this  proposition,  but  in  regard  to  any  proposition  on 
which  we  may  agree  here,  that  each  party  would  agree  to  use  its  powers 
of  discipline  to  enforce  the  compliance  with  the  agreement.  The  question 
of  the  particular  remedv  is  a question  we  will  discuss  later. 

MR.  COHEN:  Yes,  sir. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : And  that  you  would  do  it  is  to  be  expected  just  as  much 

as  the  fact  that  you  agree  upon  the  article  itself. 

MR.  COHEN:  Yes. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Now,  then,  we  will  pass  to  the  next  question,  namely, 
the  question  of  holidays  and  Sundays,  Mr.  London. 

MR.  LONDON : That  is  to  some  extent  connected  with  what  I said  before. 

Our  people  work  seven  days  anyway,  and  in  addition  to  that  our  week  workers 
expect  to  be  paid  for  legal  holidays,  so  that  this  is  closely  connected  with  the  sub- 
ject of  com.pensation,  as  well  as  with  the  regulation  of  labor. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Yes,  and  are  you  prepared  to  say  anything  on  that  sub- 
ject now,  Mr.  Cohen? 

MR.  COHEN : I see  that  they  are  connected ; that  the  question,  as  Mr.  London 

found  it  necessary  to  include  in  his  paragraph  there,  a reference  to  the  payment 
for  overtime — that  the  Sunday  and  holiday  matter  must  be  included.  J take  it 
that  in  this  industry,  like  in  every  other,  that  at  the  height  of  the  season,  holidays 
and  Sundays  are  required,  and  we  are  prepared  to  consider  the  proposition  as 
outlined  by  Mr.  London  and  report  upon  it. 


54 


MR.  LONDON : If  you  will  permit  me,  Mr.  Chairman,  I want  to  read  Sec- 

tion 7 of  our  contract.  ‘‘No  employee  shall  be  required  to  work  on  any  of  the 
ten  legal  holidays.” 

MR.  COHEN : Isn’t  that  except  during  the  busy  season? 

MR.  LONDON : We  have  no  exception  in  the  contract. 

‘‘All  legal  holidays  shall  be  paid  for.  The  refraining  from  work  on  the  ist  of 
May  celebration  shall  not  be  considered  a breach  of  the  contract.”  That  is  Sec- 
tion 7. 

MR.  COHEN : I do  not  understand  that  this  means  that  no  employee  shall 

be  required  to  work  on  any  of  the  ten  legal  holidays ; all  legal  holidays  shall  be 
paid  for. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : That  is,  if  men  work  by  the  week,  the  pro  rata  for  the 
holidays  is  not  deducted  from  the  week’s  work. 

MR.  COHEN : They  may  work  on  legal  holidays,  but  they  are  to  be  paid 
for  it? 

MR.  ROSENBERG : No,  they  shall  get  paid  without  working. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : That  applies,  in  the  first  place,  to  men  who  work  by 
the  week.  They  are  to  receive  the  full  week’s  pay,  although  it  happens  that  one 
of  the  days  is  a holiday. 

MR.  COHEN : I see. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : The  second  proposition  is  that  even  if  they  are  paid, 
they  cannot  be  compelled  to  work  on  a holiday.  Take  a piece  worker — that  a 
piece  worker  could  not  be  compelled  to  work  on  a holiday,  although  he  is  paid 
for  the  work  that  he  does. 

MR.  COHEN ; I see.  How  about  houses  that  keep  closed  on  Saturdays  and 
Jewish  holidays? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Bloch,  are  you  prepared  to^answer  that? 

MR.  BLOCH : Yes.  We  want  to  say  that  as  American  citizens  we  naturally 
do  not  recognize  no  religious  holidays,  but  we  do  want  to  enjoy  all  the  legal  holi- 
days. The  majority  of  our  members  are  Hebrews,  possibly  75  to  80  per  cent. — ■ 
still  we  believe  that  living  in  a free  country  where  legal  holidays  are  created  for 
the  purpose  of  rest  and  recreation  and  so  on,  that  we  want  to  make  our  people 
observe  those  holidays.  We  have  always  observed  the  holidays  in  one  branch 
of  our  trade,  and  always  received  compensation  therefor.  The  evil  began,  as 
suggested  by  one  gentleman — if  you  paid  double  time  for  working  on  legal  holi- 
days, I believe  that  would  be  an  unfair  proposition  to  ask  an  employer  to  pay 
double  time  for  legal  holidays,  because  if  we  could  work  for  double  rates  on  a 
holiday  we  would  have  just  as  much  right  to  work  for  single  time  on  a holiday. 
We  do  not  want  any  work  on  legal  holidays.  As  far  as  Sunday  is  observed,  those 
who  observe  Saturday  as  the  Sabbath  can  work  on  Sunday. 

MR.  COHEN:  Those  who  do  not  work  on  Saturday  can  work  on  Sunday? 

MR.  BLOCH:  Yes. 

MR.  COHEN : What  are  your  ten  legal  holidays? 

MR.  GREENBERGER:  New  Year’s  Day,  Lincoln’s  Birthday,  Washington’s 
Birthday,  Decoration  Day,  Independence  Day,  Labor  Day,  Election  Day,  Colum- 
bus Day,  Thanksgiving  and  Christmas — legal  holidays  of  the  State  of  New  York. 

MR.  COHEN : May  I ask  whether — I assume  that  these  provisions  as  to 

regular  hours  of  labor  and  other  things  are  subject  to  qualification  in  the  case  of 
sample  hands  where  samples  have  to  be  made  up  in  a special  time  to  get  them 
out,  or  else  there  will  be  no  work  in  the  shop. 

MR.  LONDON : I do  not  so  understand.  I understand  that  sample  workers 

are  to  begin  their  work  in  time — a month  or  two  before. 

MR.  COHEN : I do  not  so  understand. 


55 


MR.  LECOURT : That  is  the  very  question  I raised — whether  the  gentlemen 

who  were  going  to  discuss  these  questions  had  a knowledge  of  the  business  as  it 
is  to-day.  That  is  an  answer  to  one  of  them.  Mr.  London  naturally  has  felt,  and 
sincerely — I do  not  mean  any  insincerity  on  my  part — that  the  samples  on  the 
part  of  the  cloak  and  suit  manufacturers  were  made  at  the  beginning  of  the  season 
before  he  starts.  Now,  our  samples  only  start  when  the  women  begin  to  wear 
the  stuff;  not  at  the  beginning  of  the  season.  That  was  the  fact  ten  or  fifteen 
)^ears  ago,  but  not  to-day. 

MR.  LONDON : I wish  to  say  that  the  knowledge  of  some  members  of  the 

committee  representing  the  Union  is  much  more  extensive  than  that  of  the  manu- 
facturers. 

MR.  LECOURT : That  is  your  opinion. 

MR.  LONDON : The  knowledge  of  many  manufacturers  being  limited  by 
the  walls  of  his  own  factory,  while  the  knowledge  of  most  of  these  men  is  ex- 
tensive. 

MR.  COHEN : I shall  interrupt  Mr.  London,  as  he  interrupted  me.  We  are 

not  concerned  with  the  quantum  of  knowledge  on  either  side. 

MR.  LONDON  : All  right. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : I want  to  make  one  suggestion  which  bears  upon  this 

matter,  and  probably  upon  a great  many  of  the  others.  It  is  obvious  and  admitted 
by  everybody  that  the  trade  cannot  be  revolutionized,  but  it  is  perfectly  possible 
for  this  conference,  which  looks  not  only  to  the  immediate  future,  but  to  the  more 
remote  future,  to  recognize  as  an  evil  certain  conditions  which  they  do  not  feel 
able  immediately  to  remedy,  and  I think  that  each  side  in  considering  what  may 
appear  to  be  an  evil  they  want  to  consider  not  only  what  can  be  done  to-day,  but 
what  can  be  recognized  as  the  right  thing  to  do  as  soon  as  it  can  be  brought  about. 
Now,  I have  this  question  of  overtime  and  excess  work  at  certain  seasons — I have 
had  personally  occasion  to  consider  it  in  other  trades,  and  have  found  to  how  great 
an  extent  the  men  in  the  trade,  by  co-operation,  can  reduce  the  overtime  and  the 
congestion  of  work  by  spreading  the  work  over  an  entire  period,  and  I think  in 
any  of  these  matters,  if  you  should  recognize  that  to  be  desired,  and  recognize  it 
as  something  to  be  worked  for,  that  in  the  future  you  would  find  yourselves  to  go 
very  much  further  perhaps  than  you  may  practically  be  able  to  do  in  the  year 
1910,  and  in  reaching  many  of  these  results  perhaps  in  regard  to  the  times  of 
labor  and  overtime,  and  many  of  the  other  things,  that  you  may  be  able  to  recog- 
nize and  apparently  to  be  striven  for,  so  that  your  committees  which  may  be  or- 
ganized later  will  be  able  to  consider  the  means  for  carrjdng  out  better  at  a later 
time  what  you  may  not  be  able  to  carry  out  now. 

MR.  GREENBERGER:  Just  a few  words  to  enlighten  the  gentlemen  as  to 
how  a majority  of  the  people  will  benefit  by  observing  holidays.  On  New  Year’s 
Day  a majority  of  the  people  are  not  working;  on  Lincoln’s  and  Washington’s 
Birthdays  they  are  in  the  height  of  the  season.  Decoration  Day,  a majority  of  the 
people  are  out  of  employment.  Independence  day,  a majority  of  the  people 
are  out  of  employment.  Labor  Day  again  is  in  the  height  of  the  season, 
and  the  people  will  benefit  by  that.  Election  Day  a majority  of  the  people  are 
out  of  employment  ; Columbus  Day,  Thanksgiving  and  Christmas  a majority  of 
them  are  out  of  employment,  which  leaves  only  three  holidays.  In  this  season  they 
will  be  benefitted  by  possibly  four  holidays.  During  a majority  of  the  holidays 
the  majority  of  the  people  will  reap  no  benefit  by  it,  because  they  would  be  out  of 
employment  anyway. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : How  would  it  be  with  regard  to  those  employed  by  the 
week  ? 


56 


MR.  GREENBERGER : It  naturally  affects  only  those  employed  by  the  week. 
The  majority  of  them  will  not  be  employed  during  the  time  of  the  other  six  holi- 
days. 

MR.  POLAKOFF : I would  like  to  state  that  for  the  last  i8  years  I am  work- 

ing in  this  trade,  and  I always  worked  on  samples,  and  I always  got  paid  when  I 
am  working.  I get  paid  for  these  holidays,  too. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : I think  it  would  be  better  on  both  sides  to  avoid  men- 

tioning any  particular  establishment  or  any  particular  person  that  we  speak  of. 

MR.  ROSENBERG:  In  all  legitimate  houses  holidays  are  paid  for. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Is  there  anything  further  on  the  subject  of  holidays  and 

Sundays  ? 

MR.  LENNON : They  said  they  would  take  it  up  in  connection  with  the  mat- 
ter of  hours  for  labor. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : We  come  now  to  the  question  of  irregular  payment  of 
wages. 

]!\IR.  LONDON : The  irregular  payment  of  wages  consists  in  this  in  the  com- 
plaint : In  some  places  our  men  are  paid  once  in  two  weeks.  In  the  most  cases 

they  are  not  paid  in  cash.  In  most  places  they  are  paid  by  check,  and  many  of 
them  are  compelled  to  cash  their  checks  in  saloons.  It  is  an  evil  that  should  be 
done  away  with.  The  provision  in  our  contract  with  reference  to  that  point  is 
this : '‘Wages  shall  be  paid  in  cash  to  pieceworkers  on  each  Monday  for  work 

done  up  to  the  previous  Saturday.  To  week  workers  on  Saturdays.”  That  is  the 
recommendation  we  make  to  the  trade  on — the  demand  we  make  upon  the  trade. 

MR.  DYCHE:  One  of  the  greatest  evils  in  our  trade  is  the  irregular  payment 

of  wages.  I will  cite  an  example,  a concrete  example,  and  show  you.  I was  work- 
ing for  probably  the  largest  firm  in  the  United  States  on  cloaks,  and  in  this  firm 
there  was  no  stipulated  date.  It  was  either  Wednesday  or  Thursday,  and  it  hap- 
pened in  one  particular  instance  that  I waited  Wednesday  two  hours,  from  six  to 
eight,  and  was  told  they  would  pay  on  Thursday.  On  Thursday  they  began  to 
pay,  instead  of  at  six,  as  we  thought — they  began  to  pay  after  seven,  and  before  it 
came  to  my  turn  it  was  eight  o’clock,  and  the  man  said  he  could  not  wait  any  longer 
and  I got  my  pay  on  Friday,  after  waiting  another  hour  or  two.  I wasted  prac- 
tically three  days  waiting  for  my  pay,  and  this  is  not  an  exception.  We  do  not 
know  when  we  will  be  paid.  We  have  to  stand  in  line  waiting  our  turn. 

THE  CHAIRMAN ; I understand,  Mr.  Dyche,  that  the  grievance  of  irregu- 
larity consists,  in  the  first  place,  of  uncertain  periods ; that  is,  it  might  be  one  week 
or  two  weeks,  and  in  the  second  place,  it  consists  in  the  difficulty,  such  as  you 
described,  as  to  the  uncertainty,  even  after  assuming  that  a given  period  of  pay  is 
made  at  one  time? 

MR.  DYCHE : Yes. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : And  in  the  third  place,  the  objection  is  as  to  the  medium 
or  method  of  payment,  the  same  being  in  check  instead  of  by  cash. 

MR.  DYCHE : Another  thing  is  in  the  majority  of  houses  you  work  a week 

and  get  nothing,  and  at  the  end  of  the  second  week  you  get  the  first  week,  and  the 
employer  has  a whole  week’s  wages,  and  then  the  employee  is  not  sure  when  he 
will  get  the  second  week. 

THE  CHAIRMAN  : Now,  Mr.  Cohen,  will  you  state  the  position  of  the  manu- 

facturers, if  you  are  prepared  to  do  so. 

MR.  COHEN : I will  state  this  as  the  tentative  position.  So  far  as  the  ma- 
jority of  the  members  of  our  association  is  concerned,  as  far  as  we  know,  payment 
by  check  is  the  exception.  Whether  or  not  the  houses  who  pay  by  check  can  be 
induced  to  change  their  paying  system  we  must  ascertain.  With  regard  to  the 
payment  at  the  end  of  the  week,  at  a definite  time,  I think  that  can  be  arranged  for. 

57 


The  real  difficulty  in  this  situation  is  the  payment  by  piecework,  for  piecework, 
which  requires  considerable  bookkeeping  and  the  arranging  of  pay  envelopes,  and 
the  getting  together  of  the  account  of  the  workers,  and  I am  told  by  some  of  the 
members  that  it  is  physically  impossible  to  get  the  piece  payroll  out  by  Monday. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Well,  I suppose  that  you  could  find  out  whether  it  would 

be  necessary  to  extend  it  to  Tuesday  or  Wednesday. 

A VOICE:  That  is  what  is  done  to-day. 

MR.  COHEN : Yes,  that  is  what  is  done  to-day. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : I assume  this,  Mr.  Cohen,  that  you  agree  entirely  with 

the  gentlemen  as  to  the  desirability  of  having  payments  made  frequently,  of  having 
it  paid  in  cash,  and  of  having  it  made  as  nearly  as  possible  after  the  date  when  the 
work  has  been  performed  for  a given  period,  and  it  is  merely  a question  of  a prac- 
tical arrangement  by  which  to  carry  out  that  result? 

MR.  COHEN : Exactly.  I will  willingly  concede,  for  the  sake  of  argument, 

though  I do  not  know  the  fact,  that  there  have  been  abuses  on  the  part  of  some  of 
the  manufacturers,  but  where  the  business  has  reached  a standard  and  they  have 
bookkeeping  methods,  and  where  the  capital  of  the  business  is  large  enough,  there 
is  no  doubt  that  the  manufacturer  pays  his  workers  as  promptly  as  he  can.  It 
may  be  that  we  will  have  to  establish  for  the  general  industry  a standard  that 
already  prevails  in  the  best  shops  of  the  city.  I want  to  call  the  attention  of  the 
gentlemen  here  who  are  more  familiar  with  manufacturing  than  bookkeeping  that 
there  are  certain  methods  of  bookkeeping  that  have  to  be  done. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : There  is  a certain  time  record  to  figure  the  piece  rate, 
and  it  is  a question  of  how  great  a time  it  takes. 

MR.  COHEN:  Exactly. 

MR.  LENNON : I have  not  talked  to  a single  one  of  these  men  over  on  this 
side  of  the  table  on  this  question,  but  I am  confident  that  if  regular  payments  in 
cash  were  made  and  adhered  to  the  year  round,  there  would  be  no  objection,  if 
it  were  Tuesday,  for  instance,  or  any  day  you  like. 

MR.  SILVERMAN : The  hardest  part  of  the  pay  day  is  caused  by  the  em- 
ployee himself.  We  practically  pay  almost  every  day  at  the  demand  of  the  em- 
ployee. Our  pay  days  are,  as  a rule,  Tuesdays.  They  have  a lot  of  v;ork  that 
the  think  they  will  be  able  to  finish  by  to-morrow.  They  do  not  look  far  enough 
ahead  to  see  that  the  pay  day  for  the  following  week  would  cover  that,  but  they 
want  to  get  it  into  this  week.  The  payroll  is  immediately  held  up  for  these  gar- 
ments to  be  passed.  Then,  again,  the  operator  will  be  finished  with  his  garments 
and  the  finisher  is  not  finished  with  his,  and  the  presser  is  not  finished.  The 
operator  demands  his  pay ; the  garment  has  not  come  into  our  receiving  room,  and 
naturally  we  can  only  pay  for  garments  that  are  absolutely  finished  and  passed. 
We  have  a triplicate  system  of  tickets,  and  the  foreman  will  take  off  these  tickets 
and  pass  them  as  finished,  and  then  come  around  and  collect  the  garments  after- 
wards, and  sometimes  we  have  waited  two  weeks  before  that  garment  has  come 
through  that  we  have  already  paid  for,  and  it  will  take  us  two  weeks,  and  the  em- 
ployee is  not  in  a particular  hurry  to  finish  the  garment,  because  it  has  already  been 
paid  for.  That  is  a system  that  should  be  done  away  with.  We  are  willing  to 
pay  for  any  garment  that  is  finished,  but  we  should  not  be  asked  to  pay  for  any 
garment  that  is  half  finished. 

MR.  POLAKOFF : Is  it  not  a fact  that  in  the  large  factories  they  are  not 

getting  paid,  even  when  you  are  short  on  buttons — when  you  are  short  for  but- 
tons or  a piece  of  trimming,  and  the  whole  coat  is  completely  finished?  It  is  not 
the  fault  of  the  tailor.  He  needs  the  money ; it  is  not  the  fault  of  the  tailor. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Now,  Mr.  Polakoff,  is  it  not  a fact  that  such  instances — 

such  causes  of  dissatisfaction  as  Mr.  Silverman  has  just  mentioned,  on  the  one 


58 


hand,  and  as  you  have  mentioned  on  the  other,  are  all  the  matters  that  could  prob- 
ably be  handled  if  you  laid  down  a definite  rule?  Could  probably  be  handled  by 
the  Committee  of  Grievances  in  each  shop  which  deals  with  such  subjects? 

MR.  POLAKOFF : We  will  have  trouble.  I am  myself  a tailor,  and  I know 

absolutely  what  they  are  doing  in  the  shops. 

TFIE  CFIAIRMAN ; Mr.  Polakofif,  isn’t  this  the  proposition?  If  you  all 
agreed — that  is,  if  the  manufacturers  agreed  with  you  that  there  should  be  a cer- 
tain once  a week  for  paying  for  all  work  that  is  done,  making  that  day  as  nearly 
after  the  end  of  the  week  which  you  work  as  is  possible,  then  you  have  agreed  upon 
a principle  which  should  be  applied,  which  would  doubtless  be  acceptable  to  every- 
body? Then  if  there  are  particular  difficulties,  such  as  you  have  suggested,  they 
have  got  to  be  met,  and  a way  has  got  to  be  worked  out,  as  far  as  possible,  to  meet 
those  special  difficulties,  but  those  are  exceptional  cases.  It  is  the  general  rule 
which  we  have  got  to  agree  upon. 

MR.  ROSENBERG:  The  way  I understand. this  conference,  it  is  simply  an 
expression  of  opinion  whether  our  demands  are  justified  or  not.  I understand  this 
conference  differently  entirely.  I understand  the  conference  we  should  go  to  work 
immediately  and  abolish  and  decide  upon  a certain  policy,  how  we  should  be  guided 
in  the  future.  We  cannot  go  to  work  and  bring  up  each  and  every  difficulty  which 
may  arise,  before  the  Board  of  Arbitration  for  determination.  For  instance,  I have 
some  knowledge  in  the  manufacturing  line,  although  I have  never  been  a manu- 
facturer in  my  life,  but  being  a foreman  for  about  a year  or  two  years  I know  that 
in  a good  many  cases  hundreds  of  garments  were  finished,  pressed,  ready  to  be 
shipped,  but  the  buttons  were  not  sewed  on — the  buttons  could  not  be  turned  out  as 
quick  as  was  necessary — and  the  garments  were  laying  in  the  factory  for  weeks, 
and  the  tailors  could  not  get  their  pay.  Furthermore,  I wish  to  say  I am  an 
operator,  for  instance ; I have  done  my  share  of  the  work ; my  work  is  completed. 
Why  should  I wait  until  the  finisher  finishes  that  garment?  Am  I responsible  foi 
another  part  of  the  work?  If  the  finisher  gets  crazy  and  lets  that  garment  lay  in 
the  shop  four  weeks,  do  you  mean  to  say  that  while  that  garment  lays  in  the  shop 
I should  not  get  paid  ? I also  wish  to  say  that  the  garment  may  be  finished  by  the 
operator  and  the  finisher,  but  the  presser — there  are  not  enough  pressers  in  the 
shop — the  presser  cannot  turn  out  the  work  as  quick  as  the  operator  and  the  finisher 
makes  them,  so  there  is  another  delay  for  a week,  and  there  are  gentlemen  in  this 
room  who  will  not  deny  the  fact,  unless  they  do  not  know  what  is  going  on  in 
their  factories ; people  have  come  to  work  for  them  and  worked  for  three  weeks 
before  they  got  paid  for  three  or  four  garments,  although  they  have  made  in  the 
first  week  $20.00  or  $25.00,  and  when  the  three  weeks  were  around  they  were  told 
tliat  there  were  only  three  or  four  garments  that  have  been  delivered.  The  rest 
have  not  been  delivered.  Furthermore,  if  an  operator  or  tailor  leaves  his  em- 
ployment or  changes  places,  after  he  changes  places  he  has  to  run  for  his  pay  for 
six  weeks  in  succession.  The  first  week  two  or  three  garments  are  pressed  and 
delivered,  and  the  next  week  two  or  three  more  are  pressed  and  delivered,  and  he 
loses  more  than  the  value  of  his  work  by  running  after  his  money.  We  want  to 
abolish  this  right  away.  If  the  operator  has  done  his  share  of  the  work  he  should 
be  paid  on  Monday,  whether  the  finisher  has  finished  it  or  not.  It  is  immaterial 
whether  the  garment  is  delivered  or  not.  That  is  none  of  our  business. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : That  raises  a very  specific  and  very  interesting  and  im- 
portant question,  which  has  not  been  brought  up  before,  and  which  is  a perfectly 
definite  question  for  the  consideration  of  all  parties ; that  is,  whether  the  pay  for  a 
given  piece  of  work  on  a given  garment,  when  any  one  man’s  work  is  finished, 
whether  it  is  to  be  paid  for  at  the  end  of  the  week  in  which  it  is  done  or  at  the  end 


59 


of  a subsequent  week  in  which  the  garment  itself  is  finished  by  others.  I under- 
stand that  Mr.  Cohen  will  take  that  into  consideration. 

MR.  ROSENBERG;  If  the  Chair  requests  me,  I will  furnish  the  names  of 
those  gentlemen  here. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : I would  rather  request  you  not  to  do  it. 

MR.  COHEN : May  I ask,  Mr.  Chairman,  whether  upon  this  proposition  there 

is  any  definite  concrete  suggestion  on  the  part  of  Mr.  London? 

THE  CHAIRMAN : I understand  the  suggestion  made  by  Mr.  Rosenberg, 

which  I suppose  expresses  the  view  of  all  of  Mr.  London’s  clients,  is  that  the  rule 
should  be  laid  down  that  when  any  man  finishes  his  work  on  a particular  garment, 
he  shall  be  paid  for  that  work  on  the  first  pay  day  after  the  end  of  the  week  in 
which  that  work  has  been  finished,  even  though  some  other  person’s  work  on  the 
same  garment  may  not  be  finished  until  some  subsequent  week.  As  a matter  of 
fact,  in  some  other  trades  that  principle  which  I happen  to  know — -which  I have 
been  over  in  some  other  connection — is  pursued.  For  instance,  in  the  shoemaking 
trade.  The  work  covered  is  the  work  that  has  been  done  by  the  man  when  that 
is  finished.  I do  not  know  how  far  it  is  feasible  in  your  business,  but  that  is  the 
principle  adopted  in  the  shoemaking  trade. 

MR.  COHEN  : • I do  not  think,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  there  will  be  any  serious 
difficulty  about  the  acceptance  of  this  principle.  The  better  class  of  manufacturers 
have  long  since  adopted  it,  and  I think  that  as  a statement  of  a principle  we  shall 
be  ready  to  follow  it  out.  All  that  we  shall  to  do  is  patiently  to  work  out  the  other 
problem  of  bookkeeping  on  the  piecework,  as  to  the  date  of  payment,  and  I do  not 
think  that  is  such  a serious  matter,  because  if  the  day  comes  every  seven  days  it 
does  not  make  any  difference  whether  it  comes  on  Wednesday  or  on  Tuesday. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : I think  that  is  very  promising. 

MR.  SCHLESSINGER : I do  not  like  to  drink  any  water  flavored  with  roses. 

I believe  this  question  should  be  discussed  right  now,  as  well  as  all  other  questions. 
For  instance,  such  an  important  proposition  as  the  regularity  of  payment  of  wages, 
a question  like  this  particularly  should  be  discussed  in  the  presence  of  all  of  us,  and 
if  the  manufacturers  have  anything  to  say  about  it,  let  them  stand  up  and  say 
whatever  they  please.  I think  we  can  give  them  some  pointers  on  it.  If  the  manu- 
facturers should  discuss  this  privately  there  would  not  be  a single  one  of  us  to 
answer  their  questions,  but  if  this  question  could  be  discussed  in  the  presence  of 
all  of  us  a good  many  questions  could  be  answered  by  us.  I,  for  one,  would  like 
to  prove  that  in  a good  many  shops  where  wages  are  being  paid  irregularly  it  is 
not  the  fault  of  the  employer,  but  the  fault  of  the  man  who  works  for  the  em- 
ployer. I know  of  cases  where  people  who  do  not  have  their  work  finished  get 
their  money,  because  they  pay  a certain  part  of  it  to  the  foreman.  So,  as  I said, 
the  assurances  of  Counselor  Cohen  appear  to  me  as  drinking  rose  water — water 
flavored  with  roses. 

M'R.  COHEN : I protest  against  that. 

MR.  SCHLESSINGER:  I do  not  intend  to  criticise  you,  but  why  not  take  up 
this  very  question  now? 

THE  CHAIRMAN : As  a matter  of  fact  it  does  not  seem  profitable  to 
discuss  a proposition  which  is  already  admitted  by  the  manufacturers.  This 
particular  matter  is  already  admitted.  Mr.  Cohen  stated,  answering  I\Ir. 
Rosenbef'g’s  discussion  of  a very  important  point,  that  he  thought  there 
was  no  reason  why  that  should  not  be  done.  If  he  says  so,  I do  not  see 
why  we  should  discuss  it. 

MR.  COHEN : May  I say,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  I gave  my  assurance  at 

the  beginning  of  this  conference  to  expedite  matters.  I have  pledged  my 
people  on  this  side  of  the  table  not  to  lengthen  the  conference  by  discussing 


60 


differences  between  them  at  this  conference,  and  simply  to  make  suggestions 
which  will  facilitate  them  in  deciding  what  they  can  do.  It  will  be  an  interm- 
inable conference  if  we  are  to  discuss  before  you,  sir,  any  differences  that 
may  exist  in  our  own  councils,  and  we  have  refrained  from  such  discussion. 
We  believe  it  will  expedite  matters  for  us  to  come  to  a conclusion  and  report 
to  you  what  our  conclusion  is.  We  cannot  bind  150  people  any  more  than 
you  can  bind  your  people,  except  after  a well  considered  plan.  I am  sorry 
that  Mr.  Schlessinger  found  occasion  for  saying  that  anything  that  I said  was 
in  the  nature  of  rose  water. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : I think,  Mr.  Schlessinger,  you  do  not  fully  under- 

stand Mr.  Cohen’s  position.  I think  we  will  make  the  best  progress  by  pass- 
ing to  the  next  subject — to  that  of  sub-contracting. 

MR.  COHEN : Mr.  London,  it  is  eighteen  minutes  past  four  now.  I 

think  you  and  I v.ill  agree  that  the  sub-contracting  matter  is  probably  one 
of  the  largest  subjects  we  have  to  deal  with.  I will  agree  to  immediately  go 
into  conference  with  my  people  this  eA^ening  and  will  agree  to  go  into  con- 
ference with  .them,  again  to-morrow  morning,  and  be  prepared  to  state  our 
position  with  reference  to  all  of  these  other  matters  when  we  resume  to- 
morrow, if  we  take  an  adjournment  now.  If  that  is  not  agreeable  to  you,  I 
am  willing  to  go  on. 

MR.  LONDON : I think  we  should  go  on  now. 

THE  CHAIRMAN;  Very  well.  We  will  take  up  the  subject  of  sub- 
contracting. 

MR.  LONDON : The  subject  of  sub-contracting  emphasizes  more  than 

any  other  the  evils  in  the  trade — the  impossible  conditions  that  prevail. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Now,  describe  precisely  what  you  have  in  mind. 

MR.  LONDON : W’hat  I have  in  mind  is  this.  The  eniplo)rer  relieves 

himself  of  the  responsibility,  both  moral  and  legal  responsibility,  by  hiring 
a contractor,  an  irresponsible  person,  financially  and  otherwise  irresponsible, 
who  hires  15  or  20  or  25  men,  and  who  employs  these  people 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Do  you  refer  to  people  working  within  the  shop 

or  outside  of  the  shop? 

MR.  .LONDON;  Within  the  shop.  They  are  known  as  contractors.  The 
employer  is  not  responsible  at  all  to  those  engaged  as  a sub-contractor. 

THE  CHAIRMAN;  Within  his  own  shop? 

MR.  LONDON ; Within  his  own  shop.  Of  course  the  wages  of  these 
people  who  work  for  the  sub-contractor  are  almost  nothing,  and  this  is  a 
very  important  evil.  We  are  trying  to  educate  the  masses  that  they  should 
not  stand  for  it,  and  we  want  the  assistance  of  the  manufacturers  in  this 
regard. 

MR.  DYCHE;  The  system  of  sub-contracting  goes  further.  Mr.  London 
spoke  of  the  inside  contractor.  It  goes  to  a sub-contractor  in  the  factory. 
You  have  a certain  department,  say  a skirt  department,  and  you  have  a skirt 
contractor,  and  this  contractor  hires  10  or  15  men,  and  each  one  of  them 
hires  three  or  four  other  men,  and  you  have  a system  of  sub-sub-contracting, 
so  that  a man  who  actually  performs  the  work,  he  is  re.sponsible  to  an 
employer,  and  he  in  turn  is  responsible  to  another. 

THE  CHAIRMAN ; All  within  the  factory? 

MR.  DYCHE;  All  within  the  factory. 

MR.  COHEN;  What  is  the  remedy  that  you  propose? 

MR.  DYCHE  ; That  the  employer  should  be  responsible  to  each  individual 
employee  in  the  factory. 

MR.  COHEN;  For  his  wages? 


61 


MR.  jDYCHE:  Both  for  wages,  hours  and  conditions. 

MR.  COHEN:  This  illustrates  the  vice  of  a discussion  where  there  is  a 

divided  view  on  the  other  side  of  the  table.  As  far  as  practicable,  L do  not 
want  to  present  any  divided  view,  except  that  I shall  state  where  it  is  a 
divided  view.  T should  like  to  have  from  the  other  gentlemen  a definite 
statement  upon  the  record  which  I can  pick  up  to-morrow,  as  to  what  their 
remedy  is  for  this  condition. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : I would  ask  Mr.  London  to  state  that  on  behalf  of 

his  clients. 

MR.  LONDON : Well,  my  clients  ask  that  no  sub-contractor  should  be 

permitted  in  any  factory. 

M R.  COHEN : That  is  a broader  statement  than  you  made  a minute  ago. 

MR.  LONDON : That  is  the  same  substance  of  it. 

MR.  COHEN : I am  prepared  to  discuss  that  proposition  in  certain 

phases  now.  I believe  to  abolish — I am  not  sure  that  we  can  arrive  at  a 
decision  on  that  without  a very  lengthy  conference.  I have  had  some  dis- 
cussion with  the  manufacturers  with  reference  to  this  systeVn,  and  I am 
frank  enough  to  say  to  you  gentlemen  that  I can  see  that  it  opens  the  door 
to  very  considerable  abuse.  The  siub-contracting  system  in  the  factory 
offers  a reward  to  the  efficient  executives  who  have  not  any  capital,  so  far 
as  I can  ascertain  the  facts.  A man  who  is  a good  organizer  of  pieces  of  a 
garnient  can  find  the  assistants  to  make  the  garment,  and  utilize  the  worker 
whose  special  skill  is  confined  to  a particular  branch  of  the  garment  for 
that  particular  branch  of  the  garment,  while  using  another  of  equal  skill  to 
make  another  part  of  the  garment.  Now,  the  business  man  who  is  running 
the  factory  on  economic  lines  is  induced  by  the  person  who  possesses  this 
executive  ability  to  give  to  him  the  garment  by  the  piece,  like  one  who 
would  give 'a  coat  to  a tailor,  and  that  man  will  then  employ  the  necessary 
assistants  to  complete  the  garment.  Mr.  Lennon  will  recall  the  time  when 
the  tailor  would  send  out  his  pants  or  his  vests — the  merchant  tailor,  to  be 
made  at  home,  and  pay  the  man  the  price  for  making  the  vest  or  the 
trousers  or  the  coat.  When  I was  in  the  tailoring  business,  besides  the 
inside  work,  that  was  the  way  in  which  it  was  done.  Now,  because  the 
tenement  house  labor  has  been  abolished,  and  sanitary  conditions  are  to  a 
certain  extent  at  least  enforced  by  law,  that  kind  of  work  is  now  done  in  the 
factory,  run  by  the  employer,  and  the  men  who  used  to  get  a certain  sum 
of  money  for  making  a particular  garment  can  now  do  that  work  with  such 
assistants  as  he  himself  finds  right  in  the  factory. 

THE  CHAIRMAN ; That  is,  it  is  precisely  the  same  system  as  before, 
except  that  the  place  of  doing  the  work  is  the  factory  instead  of  the  home? 

MR.  COHEN : Exactly.  Now,  in  some  of  the  better  class  of  factories, 

that  is  not  the  system.  Where  the  higher  grade  of  garment  is  manufactured 
and  where  artistic  beauty  is  as  much  a commercial  quantity  as  utility  of  the 
garment,  the  employer  is  of  necessity  obliged  to  have  the  personal  contact 
with  the  individual  working  on  the  garment,  and  so,  of  necessity,  that  sys- 
tem does  not  exist  where  the  higher  grade  of  garments  are  made.  Where  the 
cheaper  garments  are  made,  however,  it  is  a most  revolutionary  thing — I 
mean  “revolutionary”  not  in  any  invidious  sense,  but  it  would  revolutionize 
the  industry  to  suddenly  change  that  system.  I think  the  manufacturers 
have  come  to  realize  that  it  would  be  more  desirable  having — if  a system 
could  be  devised  that  would  do  away  with  that,  but  around  the  council  board 
of  cur  manufacturers  practical  difficulties  have  been  disclosed  by  those  who 
are  familiar  with  that  system  of  doing  the  work,  that  so  far  have  presented 

62 


insurmountable  objections.  I think  it  will  be  feasible  to  make  the  manu- 
facturer responsible  for  the  payment  of  the  wages  of  those  who  work  for 
the  so-called  sub-contractor.  I think  it  will  be  feasible  to  fix  a minimum 
wage  for  those  who  assist  the  contractor,  but  so  radical  a step  as  now  pro- 
posed by  Mr.  London,  to  abolish  the  system  of  sub-contracting  would  be, 
1 am  afraid,  to  revolutionize  instead  of  evolutionize  the  industry. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Mr.  Cohen,  I think  it  would  probably  result  in  an 

aid  to  the  manufacturers  who  are  following  that  method,  if  you  could  state, 
or  perhaps,  if  one  of  your  delegates  would  state  the  particular  difficulties 
which  present  themselves  in  any  effort  to  change  that,  so  that  the  other 
gentlemen  here  may  know  them,  and  may  make  other  suggestions,  if  they 
have  any  to  make,  with  a view  to  solving  the  difficulty. 

MR.  COHEN : Mr.  Polomon  may  state  some  of  these  difficulties. 

MR.  POLOMON  : Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  we  manufacture  skirts. 

We  employ  a tailor  who  understands  a skirt  thoroughly.  He  brings  along 
with  him  an  assistant — the  assistant — and  he  also  engages  a finisher.  Now, 
we  hand  him — he  has  a machine  or  he  might  bring  in  a partner  with  him. 
'We  hand  the  both  ofj  them,  say,  50  skirts.  One  of  them  will  sew  up'  the 
seams,  the  other  one — the  finisher  will  finish,  and  the  other  one  will  trim, 
and  we  pay  the  one  person ; he  is  responsible.  He  probably  has  four  or 
five  people  under  his  control,  but  we  are  responsible  for  the  payment  of  the 
rest  of  those  people.  W'^e  make  the  price  with  the  one  individual.  If  we 
had  to  go  to  engage  these  men  individually  to  make  this  skirt,  we  would 
not  be  able  to  turn  out  one-tenth  of  the  skirts  we  do.  One  is  good  for  oper- 
ating, one  is  good  for  basting  and  pleats,  one  hand  is  good  for  trimming 
overgarments ; we  could  not  engage  all  the  single  people  to  make  a skirt. 
We  do  not  nvike  anything  but  the  medium  and  cheap  price  work.  We  might 
have  a hundred  different  departments  in  the  place ; one  department  might 
consist  of  one  or  two  people,  and  another  might  consist  of  five,  and  another  of 
six  or  seven. 

THE  CHAIRMAN ; I ask  for  the  purpose  of  information,  wouldn’t  it  be 
possible  to  have — as  it  is  now  you  have  in  all  a certain  number  of  skirt 
makers — I mean  men  who  do  the  same  work ; there  are  a certain  number  of 
men  who  are  practically  in  the  position  of  assistants  to  them 

MR.  POLOMON:  That  is  exactly  what  it  is;  assistant  to  this  tailor. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Yes.  Now,  what  would  be  the  difficulty  in  your 
paying  directly  the  man  who  makes  the  skirt;  the  man  who  assists,  and  the 
man,  if  there  be  such,  the  man  who  sews  the  buttons,  and  any  other  man 
v/ho  does  the  trimming  or  whatever  it  may  be,  that  each  one  of  these  should 
be  paid  according  to  the  work  that  he  does. 

MR.  POLOMON:  Yes. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Directly  by  you,  instead  of  by  this  one  superior  and 

more  skilled  workingman,  practically  as  an  employer  himself  of  the  button 
sewer  or  the  seam  sewer. 

MR.  POLOMON:  'We  could  do  that  very  well.  We  could  be  respon- 

sible for  any  one  of  the  operator’s  pay. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : That  would  be  merely  a question  of  the  division 

of  labor. 

MR.  POLOMON:  That  is  about  all.  But  we  could  not  employ  any  of 

the  others  to  make  a skirt. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : So.  I do  not  mean  to  employ  any  of  the  others  to 

make  a skirt,  hut  you  could  have  a division  of  labor.  In  the  other  trades 
that  I referred  to,  the  shoemaking  trade,  with  which  I am  quite  familiar,  the 

63 


work  is  sub-divided  there  in  such  a way  that  there  are  perhaps  a hundred 
different  operations  in  the  making  of  a single  shoe,  and  a hundeed  different 
classes  of  peojple  are  divided  up  doing  the  work ; but  they  do  not  find  it 
necessary  in  that  trade  to  put  any  one  of  those  in  the  position  of  a sub-con- 
tractor. They  put  them  in  the  position  of  simply  doing  a portion  of  the 
work.  They  pay  them  according  to  their  ability,  whatever  the  value  is  of 
that  particular  portion.  They  pay  them  for  the  operation. 

MIR.  POLOMON : We  have  also  a section  in  our  houses  whereby  we 

employ  operators  on  a cheaper  class  of  skirt,  by  the  week.  We  pay  them 
by  the  week,  and  we  pay  the  finishers  by  the  week,  and  we  naturally  pay  the 
pressers  separately,  but  if  we  should  look  for  individual  tailors  to  make  a 
skirt,  complete,  we  could  not  do  it. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : I understand  the  difficulty  that  you  w'ere  considering 

that  comes  not  of  dividing  up  the  labor,  but  you  adopted  this  method  on 
the  theory  of  not  having  a clear  division  yourself  among  the  labor,  but  you 
let  the  sub-contractor  make  the  division. 

MR.  POLOMON:  Yes. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Now,  as  I say,  in  the  shoe  business  that  division 

of  labor  is  quite  as  great  as  you  could  get  in  your  business,  and  they  make 
them  all,  coming  from  the  shop. 

MR.  POLOMON : Yes,  but  our  styles  change  nearly  every  day. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : It  makes  no  difference  whether  the  styles  change. 

MR.  SCHLESSINGER : The  reason  we  are  against  sub-contracting  is  not 
because  we  are  against  the  division  of  labor.  It  would  probably — if  it  were 
left  to  us,  we  would  be  against  the  division  of  labor,  because  a division  of 
labor  makes  a poor  mechanic  or  a non-mechanic,  but  we  are  against  having 
sub-contractors,  simply  because  we  are  having  too  many  agents  to  pay  com- 
missions of  the  wages  of  the  workingmen.  You  have  a skirt  maker  and  you 
pay  him  so  much  for  a skirt.  That  skirt  maker  employs  four  or  five  men. 
In  a good  many  cases  he  employs  20  men,  but  we  will  take  the  one  that  I have 
stated.  He  employs  five  persons.  Now,  that  contractor  that  employs  five 
persons,  will  not  do  it  for  love.  He  certainly  wants  to  make  something  off  it. 
Naturally  he  pays  a lower  price  than  you  are  paying  him.  You  understand 
that. 

MR.  POLOMON:  Yes,  I understand  that. 

MR.  SCHLESSINGER:  Now,  we  do  not  want  him  to  be  getting  a lower 

price  than  you  are  paying  the  other  man. 

MR.  COHEN : M r.  London,  you  have  signed  contracts  with  a number 

of  manufacturers  in  which  you  have  attempted  to  solve  this  problem.  How 
have  you  attempted  to  solve  it? 

MR.  LONDON : In  some  individual  cases  we  succeeded.  In  others  we 

modified  it  to  some  extent,  and  in  most  cases  we  yielded  to  the  demand  of  the 
manufacturers,  and  that  system  has  practically  continued  in  most  cases 
against  our  protest. 

MR.  LENNON:  You  do  not  mean  recently? 

MR.  LONDON : No,  I do  not  mean  those  who  have  signed  recentlv. 

You  Avere  referring  to  the  agreements  in  the  past. 

MR.  COHEN:  No,  these  agreements  now. 

MR.  LCiNDON : Oh,  no,  in  each  and  every  agreement  that  Ave  haA'e 

signed  now  the  employer  has  signed  this  clause  5 : “No  contracting  or  sub- 
contracting shall  be  permitted  by  the  firm  inside  of  its  factory,  and  no  oper- 
ator or  finisher  shall  employ  more  than  one  helper.” 


64 


MR.  SCHLESSINGER : Not  only  do  I want  to  speak  about  the  skirt 

maker,  but  I also  want  to  speak  about  the  presser.  I know  a good  many 
shops  who  have  gentlemen  representing  them  here,  where  the  pressers  are 
all  employed  by  the  firm  directly,  and  on  the  other  hand,  I know  of  a good 
many  shops,  also  members  of  the  association,  where  the  presser  cannot  get 
employment  unless  he  is  willing  to  work  for  a sub-contractor,  or,  in  other 
words,  having  to  pay  a part  of  his  wages  as  commission  to  a sub-contractor. 
We  are  against  the  payment  (of  commission.  We  are  not  in  this  line  of 
business,  and  we  do  not  expect  to  share  our  wages  with  anybody. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I understand  that  the  abuses  of  the  system  of  the 

middleman  are  not  disputed  at  all.  The  particular  question  which  we  are 
here  to  discuss  is  how  these  difficulties  of  the  manufacturer  can  be  overcome, 
and  which  Mr.  Rosenberg  will  make  his  suggestions  on. 

MR.  COHEN : May  I suggest,  before  Mr.  Rosenberg  speaks,  that  up  to 

this  point  we  have  only  had  one  suggestion  ; that  was  to  abolish  the  system 
of  sub-contracting.  I have  only  to  say  tO'  the  gentlemen  on  the  other  side 
C'f  the  table  that  we  are  not  at  all  confident  that  it  can  be  abolished  at  this 
time,  and  my  question  is  now  directed  to  the  purpose  of  having  from  the 
other  side  any  suggestions  or  remedies,  in  case  the  system  cannot  be  entirely 
abolished.  That  is  what  I want,  for  practical  purposes. 

THE  CHAIRMAN  : Don't  you  want  also  any  suggestions  which  would 

aid  you  in  overcoming  that  difficulty  which  you  find  in  abolishing  it? 

MR.  COHEN  : Pardon  me,  Mr.  Chairman.  The  manufacturer  knows  the 

difficulties  of  his  business  better  than  I possibly  can  learn  in  a few  weeks,  and 
I am  confident  that  if  there  is  any  possible  rvay  by  which  it  can  be  overcome, 
it  will  be  overcome.  The  outcome — the  results  of  the  system  so  far  as  they 
are  good,  have  been  pointed  out.  and  so  far  as  they  are  bad  have  been  pointed 
out,  but  there  are  some  of  our  people  who  feel  very  strongly  that  the  time 
has  not  yet  arrived  when  the  system  can  be  abolished,  as  a practical  matter. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  I want  to  say,  and  I thought  it  would  aid 

us — all  of  us — to  have  a statement,  not  of  the  fact  that  you  deem  it  impos- 
sible or  difficult  to  abolish  it,  but  why  it  is — what  the  practical  difficulty  is. 

MR.  ROSENBIERG:  I will  explain  the  reason  why  the  manufacturers  do 

not  want  to  abolish  it. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  No,  I do  not  want  to  know  the  reason  why  they  do 

not  want  to  abolish  it,  but  I want  to  know  what  the  particular  difficulty  is 
in  abolishing  it.  I thmk  we  all  want  to  know  that.  Mr.  Polomon  stated 
one  difficulty  as  he  viewed  it.  I understand  there  are  one  or  two  others  of 
your  delegates  that  have  suggestions  of  specific  difficulties.  If  we  can  hear 
a specific  suggestion  bom  Mr.  Rosenberg. 

MR.  COHEN : Mr.  Rosenberg  is  not  accustomed  to  retaining  his  points 

as  long  as  I am,  and  I think  he  should  be  given  the  floor  before  me. 

MR.  ROSENBERG:  I want  to  make  it  as  clear  as  I possibly  can.  Mr. 

Cohen  has  stated  in  the  beginning  that  the  reason  why  the  manufacturers 
have  a system  of  sub-contracting  is  because  there  are  men  who  have  the 
organizing  ability  to  divide — to  put  on  different  men  on  different  parts  of 
the  garment,  and  that  consequently  the  garments  are  turned  out  cheaper 
and  probably  much  better  than  those  made  by  an  individual.  I am  here 
to  dispute  this  statement  of  Mr.  Cohen.  In  the  first  place,  I will  show  you 
an  instance.  Take,  for  instance,  pressers.  There  is  no  skill  in  organizing 
pressers.  Any  presser  can  do  any  pressing,  all  kinds  of  pressing.  There  is 
no  requirement  of  any  extra  ability  or  intelligence  to  get  50  pressers  together 
and  sweat  them  to  death  and  pay  them  as  less  as  they  possibly  can,  and  to 

65 


tuna  out  the  garments.  For  instance,  in  case  of  a gentleman  who  is  right 
here  at  this  conference,  he  has  about  50  or  75  pressers.  He  goes  to  work 
and  pays  his  pressers  10  or  15  or  25  cents  for  pressing  a garment;  I don’t 
know  exactly  how  much  he  pays.  He  engages  two  pressers  or  three  or  five. 
They  should  do  the  entire  work  for  the  shop.  .Those  two  or  three  perssers 
have  either  the  chance  of  having  money  to  put  up  as  security  for  the  full 
amount  of  their  agreement,  and  consequently  they  are  on  friendly  relations 
with  the  foreman  or  the  superintendent,  and  to  them  the  job  is  allotted.  He 
goes  to  work  and  picks  up  men  who  have  never  been  pressers  from  the 
street,  and  pays  one  $3.00  a week,  $5.00  to  the  next,  $5.50  and  $6.00  or 
$8.00  and  up  to  $10.00  or  $12.00.  The  pressers  who  are  capable  in  the  trade, 
have  been  in  it  for  12  or  15  years,  on  account  of  this  condition  cannot  get 
a job  nine  months  in  the  year,  and  cannot  make  a living  because  these  press- 
ing contractors  will  not  pick  up  a man  who  is  a practical  presser.  He  has 
no  use  for  him,  because  a practical  presser  may  demand  $16.00  or  $18.00 
or  $20.00  a week.  He  does  not  care.  He  takes  him  from  Ellis  Island.  The 
minute  he  comes  from  Ellis  Island,  the  head  presser  goes  out  to  Union 
Square,  or  somewhere  else,  and  gets  a green  man  and  pays  him  $3.00  a 
week,  in  the  beginning,  to  show  him  how  to  press,  while  the  man  who 
actually  worked  all  his  life  lays  around  the  streets  for  a month  and  has  no 
means  to  live.  The  reason  the  manufacturers  will  fight  it  is  because  they 
will  have  to  employ  competent  pressers  who  are  in  this  country,  and  who 
are  accustomed  to  living  as  an  American  citizen  is  used  to  live,  and  they 
will  not  work  for  $3.00  and  consequently  the  jacket  will  cost  the  manufac- 
turer 15  cents  more  to  have  it  pressed;  but  they  are  taking  advantage  of 
those  in  authority — poor  devils,  working  for  $3.00  or  $4.00  a week,  and  the 
manufacturers  will  meet  us  right  here.  On  one  side  they  are  accumulating 
wealth  by  sweat  out  of  those  poor  devils. 

MR.  COHEN:  We  are  in  a conference,  Mr.  Rosenberg. 

MR.  ROSENBERG:  I beg  to  be  excused.  It  has  been  proven  that 

pressing  contracts — pressing  contractors  get  over  $100  or  $150  a week, 
while  the  rest  of  them  working  for  those  pressers  are  going  home  with  $6.00 
or  $8.00  a week.  Someone  will  say,  “We  are  not  responsible  for  the  wages.” 
That  is  all  right.  As  far  as  the  wages  are  concerned,  of  course,  any  of  them 
are  responsible  for  the  wages,  according  to  the  City  of  New  York. 

MR.  LONDON : No,  they  are  not. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  No,  they  are  not. 

MR.  ROSENBERG:  Anyhow,  I am  working  as  a sub-contractor  for 
some  presser.  I go  and  ask  for  a raise  in  wages.  The  answer  I get  is  that 
the  price  for  the  garment  is  so  small  that  I cannot  actually  afford  to  raise 
you  a dollar  or  a half  a dollar  more.  The  same  presser  goes  to  the  superin- 
tendent and  says  he  Avants  more  money.  “Who  are  you?  I don’t  know 
you.”  He  comes  back  to  his  contractor,  and  he  has  no  redress  then. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Mr.  Rosenberg,  I would  like  to  call  your  attention 

to  this  fact,  as  to  what  the  exact  question — the  difficulty  is  with  which  I 
understand  we  are  dealing.  I understand  that  Mr.  Cohen,  as  representing 
the  manufacturers,  recognizes  the  desirability,  so  far  as  it  is  possible,  of 
dealing  directly — of  the  manufacturer  dealing  directly  with  the  man,  without 
the  possibility  of  the  necessity  of  a sub-contractor  and  a sub-sub-contractor. 
I understand  that  from  the  manufacturer's  standpoint  it  is  in  one  sense  imma- 
terial to  him  who  gets  the  money.  That  is,  he  does  not  desire  to  pav  an 
exorbitant  profit  to  one  sub-contractor  or  a sub-sub-contractor.  The  question 
is  how  mucirhe  has  to  pay  on  the  whole  for  getting  a certain  service.  Now. 

66 


for  some  reasons  which  have  been  in  part  stated,  the  manufacturers  believe 
there  will  be  difficulty  in  doing  away  with  what  Mr.  Schlessinger  has  called 
the  commission  system;  that  is,  the  intermediate  profit,  the  special  profit  of 
the  middleman,  but  they  believe  there  are  difficulties  in  overcoming  that 
situation.  Now,  I think  what  would  be  most  helpful  to  us,  admitting  the 
wrong  of  the  situation,  is  to  make  some  suggestion  as  to  how  you  can  over- 
come the  difficulty. 

MR.  ROSENBERG:  It  is  an  easy  matter.  First  of  all,  Mr.  Polomon 

has  said  that  in  his  factory,  where  he  manufactures  shirts,  the  sub-contracting 
system  is  absolutely  impossible  to  abolish.  I would  like  to  ask  this  question 
of  Mr.  Polomon.  Why  is  it  that  a rhajority  of  the  suit  houses  are  making 
their  suits,  not  on  the  sub-contracting  system?  That  is  first  of  all.  Sec- 
ondly— 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  us  have  him  answer  that  first. 

MR.  POLOMON:  The  skirts  we  manufacture  are  entirely  different  than 
a suit  skirt.  I make  suits  also.  We  never  take  a skirt  from  our  separate 
skirt  department  and  put  it  on  a suit.  You  cannot  use  it. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  is  the  reason?  What  is  the  distinction? 

MR.  POLOMON:  Well,  the  style  and  everything.  A suit  skirt  is  made 

to  match  a coat,  and  a separate  skirt  is  made  so  that  you  could  wear  a sepa- 
rate waist,  to  match  any  kind  of  waist.  It  is  entirely  different. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes.  Now,  in  both  classes  of  garments,  do  you 

apply  the  sub-contracting  system? 

MR.  POLOMON:  In  both?  Yes,  we  do. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Well,  now,  Mr.  Rosenberg’s  statement  was  that  in 

one  of  them  many  of  the  manufacturers  did  not  do  that. 

MR.  POLOMON:  Well,  we  had  some  difficulty  in  that  line.  We  take 

very  often  the  suit  skirts  and  we  send  them  outside  to  be  made;  have  con- 
tractors outside;  but,  coming  to  the  point,  our  voile  skirts  particularly  are 
trimmed  with  satin  or  taffeta  trimming.  Now,  the  tailor  he  knows  how  to 
mark  the  trimming  and  trim  the  skirt.  The  girl  only  bastes;  all  she  knows 
is  to  go  by  the  notches  and  do  the  pleating  and  basting,  and  the  tailor  puts 
the  garment  together.  Then  there  is  another  girl  that  does  nothing  but  sew 
on  hooks  and  eyes,  trim  the  bottom  and  baste. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : What  I would  like  to  have  for  my  information  is 
why  it  is  necessary  that  these  different  individuals  who  co-operate  to  make 
that  skirt  should  be  the  employees  of  a sub-contractor — three  or  four  of  them 
employees  of  a sub-contractor,  instead  of  all  four  of  them  directly  employees 
of  yours? 

MR.  POLOMON : We  employ  intelligent  labor  to  make  the  skirt.  Now, 
he  gets  assistants.  If  he  was  to  make  that  skirt  himself  solely,  why,  the  skirt 
would  cost  probably  three  times  as  much. 

MR.  LONDON : That  is  just  the  point. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Why  couldn’t  each  one  of  those  three  or  four  per- 
sons be  directly  emploved  by  you? 

MR.  POLOMON:  We  have  tried  that.  It  is  very  difficult. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  is  the  question  I would  like  to  know  about. 

MR.  POLOMON : We  have  tried  it  a dozen  times.  It  is  very  difficult. 

We  have  tried  to  rush  stuff  through.  If  we  give  it  to  the  baster  she  might 
not  be  here  to-day,  or  the  tailor  might  be  sick  that  day. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  would  be  equally  true  if  there  were  sub- 
workers. 


67 


MR.  POLOMON;  Well,  but  he  gets  somebody  else  if  they  do  not 
show  up. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Couldn’t  you  get  somebody  else  as  well  as  that  sub- 

contractor gets  somebody  else? 

MR.  POLOMON:  Yes,  it  could  be  done. 

MR.  ROSENBERG:  I do  not  dispute  the  right  of  subdividing  the  skirt 

or  jacket  or  any  other  style.  We  do  not  dispute  it.  The  question  is  if  there 
is  a subdivision  to  be  done,  then  each  man  works  on  a certain  part,  he  should 
get  paid  directly  by  the  manufacturer. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I understand. 

MR  ROSENBERG:  'Now,  I am  willing  to  prove  that  some  skirt  manufac- 
turers on  the  same  line  as  Mr.  Polomon  do  not  employ  the  sub-contracting 
system.  They  also  make  separate  skirts  with  velvet  and  all  kinds  of  stuff. 
They  have  basters  who  are  doing  nothing  but  basting,  and  finishers  to  sew 
hooks  and  eyes,  and  so  on;  still  the  operator,  whatever  he  makes,  he  gets 
paid  for  his  part  so  much  and  so  much,  and  there  is  no  such  thing  as  a con- 
tracting system.  Let  us  go  still  further.  We  may  say  that  in  the  skirt  busi- 
ness this  is  absolutely  impossible  to  abolish.  Let  us  take  it  for  granted,  as 
Mr.  Polomon  stated,  that  it  is  impossible  to  abolish  the  system  of  sub-con- 
tracting, but  on  jackets  it  is  possible  to  get  along  without  sub-contracting. 
I guess  it  is,  because  there  are  no  such  things  as  trimmings  on  jackets.  Why 
is  it  that  there  are  gentlemen  who  are  here  on  this  floor  who  have  a system 
whereby  they  employ  about  lo  men  in  their  entire  shop — ten  men  are  getting 
paid  by  the  boss,  and  those  ten  men  are  killing  500  other  men,  paying  them 
$3.00,  $6.00,  $8  00.  and  so  on. 

A VOICE:  That  saves  bookkeeping. 

MR.  ROSENBERG:  That  may  be  the  case. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : I think  Mr.  Silverman  wanted  to  answer  this  question 

in  regard  to  this  same  matter. 

MR.  SILVERMAN : I will  try  to  answer.  I think  in  a majority  of  cases 
it  is  not  done  the  same.  I have  just  a small  part  of  that  done  myself.  That  is 
rather  a bonus  to  the  foreman.  Instead  of  hiring  a foreman  to  do  that  work  we 
pay  him  so  much  money  for  it  and  he  divides  it  into  different  sections  and  over- 
looks the  whole  job.  Instead  of  going  into  the  system  of  making  up  the  differ- 
ent payrolls  we  pay  the  foreman  so  much,  and  he  pays  his  people.  This  is  the 
same  as  if  I had  a certain  class  of  work — that  I can  hire  people  to  carry  this  table. 
I do  not  need  to  do  that  myself.  It  is  sub-divided  into  different  sections.  It  is 
merely  done  to  save  having  toe  many  foremen  to  deal  with. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : I have  found  in  other  trades  so  much  abuse  under  this 

sub-contracting  system  that  I wanted  very  much  to  know  the  specific  difficulties 
that  you  had  met,  because  I have  found  in  other  trades  where  they  supposed  they 
had  difficulties,  that  they  overcame  them,  and  that  we  come  back  to  the  very  old 
difficulties  of  farming  out  taxes,  and  the  rest  of  them 

MR.  COHEN : I just  want  to  suggest  this.  Even  assuming  that  the  argument 

as  it  has  been  presented  thus  far — that  it  is  an  economic  condition  that  can  be 
remedied,  my  point  is  that  it  cannot  be  remedied  in  a hurry  by  any  legislation  that 
we  agree  upon  here ; that,  in  other  words,  it  will  revolutionize  the  working  opera- 
tions of  our  industrv.  It  does  not  exist  throughout  the  industry,  but  I do  not 
understand  that  the  gentlemen  here  on  behalf  of  the  employees  are  here  for  the 
purpose  of  ruining  any  particular  manufacturer,  and  those  special  manufacturers 
who  have  been  conducting  the  business  on  those  lines  cannot  be  expected  with  one 
swoop  to  change  their  entire  methods.  Now,  it  may  be  that  this  can  be  done 
away  with,  It  might  benefit  a few  employees  in  those  establishments,  but  we 

68 


ought  not  to  adopt  a drastic  remedy  that  will  practically  destroy  by  the  sudden 
change  a considerable  number  of  manufacturers.  Now,  that  is  my  point.  I am 
informed  by  some  of  the  manufacturers  who  are  approaching  this  question  in  a 
spirit  of  improvement,  that  this  system  cannot  be  changed  over  night. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Are  you  prepared  from  your  discussion  of  the  subject, 

to  suggest  for  the  consideration  of  the  representatives  of  the  Unions  some  pro- 
vision which  would  result — you  say  it  cannot  be  abolished  altogether. 

MR.  ROSENBERG:  I am  able  to  prove  that  we  can  abolish  it  right  now  in 

five  minutes.  There  is  no  danger  of  revolutionizing  the  trade  at  all ; none  what- 

ever. 

MR.  LENNON : Mr.  Rosenberg  has  not  completed  his  statement. 

MR.  ROSENBERG:  We  have — in  a few  dozen  houses,  wEether  small  or 
large,  we  went  to  work  last  fall  or  last  spring,  and  we  decided  to  abolish  the  sub- 
contracting system  in  pressing  also,  in  so  far  as  operating  is  concerned,  and  we 
have  done  it  without  any  injury  to  the  manufacturers.  The  manufacturers  are 
on  good  terms  with  us,  and  even  that  the  large  manufacturers,  but  the  small  ones 
also. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : I think  it  would  be  useful  if  you  would  tell  us  about 

that. 

MR.  ROSENBERG : We  have  decided  that  a presser  should  work  directly 
for  his  firm,  and  we  simply  fixed  up  a scale  for  the  presser  to  get  so  much  and 
so  much,  and  if  his  foreman  has  an  organizing  ability,  let  him  use  it  for  the  in- 
terest of  the  firm,  but  let  each  man  work  for  the  firm.  Why  is  it  possible  in  the 
overall  line?  Overalls  are  much  cheaper  than  skirts.  Why  is  it  possible  to  have 
that  division  of  labor,  and  each  man  and  girl  work  directly  for  the  manufacturer. 

MR.  POLOMON : Can  I answer  that? 

MR.  ROSENBERG:  I will  be  through  in  about  a second,  and  then  you  would 

have  your  say.  I say  this,  it  seems  to  me  that  this  entire  conference  is  merely 
expressing  a good  will,  but  we  are  not  here  for  expressing  good  wills.  We  are  here 
to  get.  Can  we  get  it  or  not?  If  we  are  able  to  get  it,  then  it  is  all  right.  If  it 
is  simply  expressing  good  will 

THE  CHAIRMAN : This  is  not  speaking  to  the  point. 

MR.  ROSENBERG:  It  can  be  eliminated  over  night.  If  the  manufacturers 

will  pledge  themselves  to  abolish  sub-contracting  with  pressers — we  are  not  dis- 
cussing the  question  of  the  division  of  labor,  we  are  discussing  that  each  man 
should  work  directly  for  the  firm.  That  is  all  we  are  after. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  can  you  point  out  as  to  the  way? 

MR.  ROSENBERG:  Instead  of  having  a contractor,  let  the  contractor  be 

also  an  operator.  Each  operator  should  work  also  for  the  firm  directly.  It 
is  absolutely  the  easiest  proposition  I could  have.  I want  to  impress  upon  you 
gentlemen  that  we  are  here  in  this  strike  to  eliminate  competition  to  some  extent — 
unfair  competition.  If  there  are  manufacturers  who  are  competing  with  other 
manufacturers  who  have  not  established  the  system  as  they  have,  we  want  to 
eliminate  them,  no  matter  whether  they  are  members  of  the  Association  or  not. 
The  moment  we  should  agree  to  remain  on  the  olcL  system  of  contracting,  some 
of  you  gentlemen  will  have  to  suffer  just  as  we  will,  although  you  belong  to  an 
association.  I know  there  was  some  gentlemen  here  who  do  not  know  of  that 
system.  They  have  to  pay  for  that  skirt  $3.00,  while  the  next  member  gets  it  for 
50  cents. 

MR.  COHEN : I do  not  think  we  are  making  any  progress  by  this  harangue. 

MR.  POLOMAN : Mr.  Chairman,  I would  be  only  too  pleased  if  my  busi- 

ness could  be  conducted  in  the  same  way  that  the  overall  business  is,  so  that  we 


69 


should  be  able  to  employ  each  individual  separately.  From  what  I understand, 
the  overall  business  is  one  style,  and  that  style  will  last — 

A VOICE;  No,  that  is  not  so. 

MR.  POLOMAN ; They  may  have  a hundred  styles,  but  they  are  going  to 
run  them  right  along  from  the  beginning  of  the  season.  Our  styles,  as  everyone 
knows,  change  over  night,  and  we  might  make  a certain  style  up,  and  as  soon  as 
we  get  that  broken  in,  you  don’t  get  any  duplicates.  We  have  to  make  new  styles 
■ — new  numbers. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : I do  not  understand  the  difficulty  myself  of  doing  away 

with  the  sub-contracting  system,  and  that  is  the  reason  I have  been  rather  per- 
sistent in  asking  these  questions,  because  I do  not  see  anything  in  the  nature  of 
things  why,  if  one  of  your  men,  John  Smith,  can  select  a trimmer  and  buttonhole 
sewer  and  ribbon  sewer  and  presser,  and  half  a dozen  other  things — why  your 
foreman  or  superintendent  or  factory  cannot  do  the  same  thing  just  as  well.  I 
do  not  see  any  reason  why  you  should  not  have — I can  see  how  the  system  grew 
up;  historically  it  is  perfectly  clear,  but  I cannot  see  why  it  is  a necessary  inci- 
dent to  manufacture  in  your  business  than  in  any  others. 

MR.  POLOMAN : I do  not  know  that  it  is. 

MR.  LEFCOURT : Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  it  seems  to  me  the  ques- 

tion of  sub-contracting,  as  far  as  the  garment  is  concerned,  I have  not  had  very 
much  experience  with  it  outside  of  the  fact  that  I know  that  it  exists,  and  the  rea- 
sons if  some  of  the  gentlemen  would  take  the  time  to  learn,  as  much  the  reasons 
for  that  coming  from  the  retailer,  the  man  that  really  buys  the  garment,  the  con- 
ditions are  brought  about  much  the  same  as  a man  putting  up  a building ; a build- 
ing and  a garment  is  practically  on  the  same  lines ; the  same  as  building  a house. 
The  contracts  for  different  parts  are  given  out  to  a sub-contractor  in  order  to  get 
that  building  finished  in  a less  time  than  it  would  take  if  individual  men  were 
employed  and  put  on  that  building.  I dispute  with  every  gentleman  on  the  other 
side  that  the  manufacturer  is  trying  to  save  any  money,  because  I do  not  doubt 
that  it  costs  him  for  the  same  thing — it  costs  him  fully  the  same  by  putting  it  out 
on  conract  as  it  would  if  he  were  puting  these  men  on  individually,  but  it  simply 
means  this,  that  instead  of  building  one  building,  he  builds  two,  thereby  givong 
his  men  more  employment,  and  that  is  the  system  that  has  been  in  vogue  a good 
many  years.  * 

THE  CHAIRMAN : If  I may  interrupt  you,  is  it  a fact  that  in  your  associa- 

tion, some  of  your  members  have  sub-contractors  in  their  employ,  and  some  do 
their  business  without  them? 

MR.  LEFCOURT : Well,  I find  that  a majority  of  them  do  no  sub-contracting, 
except  the  pressing  end  of  it,  and  the  pressing  end  of  it,  having  had  experience 
in  both  ways — in  fact,  that  is  about  the  only  line  I have  had  experience  in. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Assuming  that  a garment  has  been  manufactured  from 

the  beginning;  I mean  by  a system  of  all  men  being  in  your  employ,  and  it  comes 
to  what  I assume  to  be  the  last  act,  that  of  pressing,  why  cannot  you  employ  a 
presser  to  press  those  goods,  just  as  you  can  a man  to  sew  the  seams  or  the  but- 
tons, or  anything  else?  I do^’t  understand  it? 

MR.  LEFCOURT : Peculiar  conditions  exist,  to  be  very  frank  with  you.  A 

man  who  works  with  pressers  constantly ; that  is,  the  contractor,  as  you  call  him, 
will  positively,  for  reasons  unknown — they  will  positively  work  more  faithfully 
than  they  would  for  an  employer  direct.  I have  had  it  in  both  cases  where  I could 
prove  it. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Is  a presser  paid  by  the  piece  or  by  the  week? 

MR.  LEFCOURT : The  individual  presser  is  paid  by  the  week. 

70 


THE  CHAIRMAN : Now,  why  wouldn’t  that  individual  presser  be  paid  just 

as  well  by  the  week  as  if  he  were  working  on  a sub-contract? 

MR.  LEFCOURT : That  is  a question  which  is  unfathomable. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Are  there  any  shops  where  all  the  pressers  work  di- 
rectly for  the  superintendent? 

MR.  LEFCOURT ; I don’t  know  of  any.  There  may  be  half  a dozen  where 
they  do.  There  must  be  some  price  placed  onto  the  garment  as  to  what  it  costs 
for  pressing. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : That  is  true  of  each  item  in  the  garment.  You  must 
know  practically  when  you  make  up  your  cost,  exactly  what  it  is  going  to  co"i 
you  for  pressing  and  for  buttonholing  and  so  much  for  this  and  for  that,  and  the 
sum  total  is  the  cost  of  the  v/hole  thing. 

MR.  LEFCOURT:  Absolutely. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Now,  what  I want  to  know  is  whether  this  sub-contract- 

ing is  a mere  habit  that  the  business  has  gotten  into,  or  whether  it  is  something 
inevitable  to  the  successful  conduct  of  the  business. 

MR.  LEFCOURT : It  is  a habit.  In  building  your  garment  you  want  to 

know  what  the  pressing  will  cost  you. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes;  I suppose  that  would  be  true  of  every  other  part 
of  the  garment. 

MR.  LEFCOURT : The  price  of  the  operating  is  established. 

MR.  ROSENBERG:  Why  isn’t  it  in  the  cutting? 

MR.  LEFCOURT : You  have  a different  element  to  deal  with.  The  class 
of  men  that  work  for  the  sub-contractor  will  not  work  for  the  employer  as  faith- 
fully. * 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Isn’t  it  possible  by  co-operation  with  the  union  to  secure 

for  those  pressers  the  same  sort  of  satisfactory  men  you  get  for  trimmers  or 
cutters  ? 

MR.  LEFCOURT : I hope  to  see  it  some  day,  but  I think  it  is  something  you 

could  not  radically  change. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Then  what  you  say  is  that  the  difficulty  is  not  inherent 
in  the  work,  but  it  is  attributable  to  some  habits,  whatever  they  may  be,  which  that 
mass  of  workmen  has  got  into? 

MR.  LEFCOURT:  Absolutely. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : If  that  is  true,  then  it  seems  to  me  to  be  up  to  those 

who  are  familiar  with  this  work  to  explain  how  it  is. 

MR.  SODOWSKY : My  pressers  are  all  working  directly  for  me. 

MR.  SCHLESSINGER : How  many  do  you  employ? 

MR.  SODOWSKY : About  150,  and  I think  that  all  the  gentlemen  will  agree 
that  it  will  be  to  their  advantage  to  employ  the  pressers  direct. 

MR.  SCHLESSINGER:  I am  a skirt  maker,  and  have  worked  a great  many 

years  in  the  shops  in  New  York.  I want  to  say  there  are  several  reasons  why  the 
system  of  contracting — in  some  cases  it  is  business.  In  some  cases  there  are  people 
in  close  touch  with  the  firm,  and  by  influence  they  get  in  close  touch  with  this 
branch  of  the  work.  In  some  cases  it  is  shirking  responsibility.  He  is  busy  with 
something  else  and  turns  it  over  to  this  man.  But  what  I want  to  say  is  this : I 

know  several  big  houses  who  are  manufacturing  skirts,  and  who  have  no  sub- 
contractor, and  never  have  had,  and  they  are  growing  concerns  to-day  and  they 
are  extending  their  trade.  They  have  never  had  any  difficulty.  The  greatest  evil 
is  in  the  pressing  trade.  In  most  instances  there  are  three  or  four  men  partners ; 
sometimes  five  men  come  to  a firm  and  give  them  sometimes  $500.  In  the  press- 
ing system  this  prevails.  At  the  beginning  of  the  season,  when  it  is  very  slow, 
two  or  three  pressers  will  come  to  the  factory  or  the  superintendent  and  give  him 

71 


?400  or  $500  security  to  get  the  work.  They  will  work  themselves  when  it  is 
slow.  When  it  is  busy  they  will  work  overtime,  and  when  it  is  absolutely  a physi- 
cal impossibility  for  them  to  accomplish  all  of  the  work  they  take  on  some  new 
men,  and  it  is  only  at  the  height  of  the  season  that  they  employ  a complete  set  of 
men.  As  soon  as  it  gets  slow  they  begin  to  discharge  those  men  until  they  remain 
there  doing  the  work  during  the  slack  time.  The  average  presser  finds  very  little 
work  to  do.  He  can  get  in  only  three  or  four  months’  work  in  a year,  because 
there  are  four  or  five  men  who  have  the  security  and  can  get  the  work.  Of  course, 
there  is  a difficulty.  There  are  certain  difficulties  to  overcome,  but  this  sub-con- 
tracting is  done  because  it  is  so  much  cheaper  and  easier,  and  more  convenient 
to  work  seven  days. 

MR._BLOCH;  I want  to  say  this,  that  I do  not  try  to  impose  any  hardships 
on  the  employers  by  abolishing  this  inside  contract  system.  We  know  that  fair 
employers  pay  as  much  to  sub-contractors  as  they  pay  each  one  individually,  but 
ii  leaves  that  loop-hole  open  for  the  unfair  manufacturer,  because  he  is  satisfied  if 
he  earns  $75  a week  and  pays  them  six  or  seven  dollars.  It  is  the  under  man 
who  works  for  these  i^eople  that  is  the  victim  of  the  system.  The  employer  is  not 
the  beneficiar}^.  We  have  discussed  this  question  with  some  of  the  employers, 
for  instance,  in  the  cutting  trade.  At  one  time  they  had  cpiite  a lot  of  this  piece- 
work, but  they  finally  abolished  it.  Now,  the  employer  was  paying  more  for  his 
work  than  if  he  employed  the  cutters  directly.  Naturally,  it  brought  around  a 
system  of  direct  employment  of  the  cutter. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : With  your  permission,  I would  like  to  ask  Mr.  Sodowsky 

another  question.  You  said  you  had  no  sub-contracting  of  the  press  men? 


MR.  SODOWSKY : No. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Is  there  any  sub-contracting  in  your  factory? 

MR.  SODOWSKY : In  some  departments.  In  the  finishing  and  operating. 

There  are  only  one  or  two,  or  three  or  four  people  working  together. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : You  have,  for  some  reason  or  other,  which  we  need  not 

go  into  now,  have  not  had  any  sub-contracting  of  press  men  ? 

MR.  SODOWSKY:  We  have  had  it  occasionally. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  You  haven’t  any  now? 

MR.  SODOWSKY:  No. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : How  long  is  it  since  vou  have  abolished  sub-contracting 


of  press  men? 

MR.  SODOWSKY : About  a year  ago. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Is  the  class  of  work  which  you  do  in  your  factory — 

does  it  differ  materially  from  that  of  other  factories? 

MR.  SODOWSKY : Oh,  yes;  they  make  higher  class  work. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : You  have  a low  class? 

MR.  SODOWSKY : Popular  price.  We  find  we  get  better  work  out  of  the 

people  by  employing  them  directly. 

MR.  COHEN : Does  that  apply  to  finishing  as  well  as  pressing? 

MR.  SODOWSKY:  No. 

MR.  COHEN : Are  you  in  favor  of  adopting  it  with  regard  to  finishing,  as 

well  ? 

MR.  SODOWSKY : If  it  could  be  done. 

MR.  BLOCH : I do  not  believe  that  we  want  to  revolutionize  the  whole  trade 

in  a minute. 


MR.  SILVERMAN : I think  in  a little  time  the  thing  could  be  changed. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : If  I may  suggest,  the  time  for  the  adjournment  has  ar- 

rived, and  if  you  gentlemen  before  our  meeting  to-morrow,  so  far  as  you  are  able 
to  go  over  all  of  these  matters  that  we  have  discussed,  if  you  could  go  over  them 

72 


and  then  come  in  and  give  yoiir  views  on  them  as  to  what  it  is  possible  to  do  to 
carry  them  out. 

AIR.  COHEN  : I suggest  this : I hope  the  stenographer  will  be  able  to  get  out 

the  minutes  by  to-morrow  morning,  even  If  he  has  to  work  overtime,  and  send 
another  man  here  to-morrow.  Aly  plan  was  to  go  over  the  minutes  in  the  caucus 
to-morrow  morning,  and  to  come  back  with  answers  to  these  matters,  and  I intend 
to  prepare  the  answers  to-morrow  morning.  May  I say  this  for  the  benefit  of 
some  of  the  gentlemen  here,  who,  without  perhaps  intending  it,  have  made  remarks 
tending  to  reflect  upon  the  sincerity  of  our  members,  because  we  have  tried  to  get 
light,  and  have  expressed  hope  here.  I have  gone  as  far  to-day  in  committing  my 
side  as  I think  it  is  fair  to  ask  at  a first  conference,  and  I do  not  propose  to  commit 
my  side  to  any  proposition  that  I am  not  confident  will  be  honestly  carried  out  by 
my  people,  and  I do  not  think  it  is  reasonable  to  ask  that  we  shall  commit  our- 
selves on  every  matter  that  comes  up  here.  I have  given  my  pledge  in  good  faith 
that  we  will  do  everything  on  our  side  to  see  if  we  can  find  an  amicable  adjustment 
of  these  grievances.  We  have  not  come  here  in  any  spirit  of  fight  or  squabble. 
On  our  side  I think  we  have  refrained  from  anything  that  might  lead  to  bad  feel- 
ing, and  I should  like  the  gentlemen  on  the  other  side  to  reflect  over  night  and 
to  come  to  to-morrow’s  conference  in  a spirit  of  trust,  rather  than  a spirit  of  criti- 
cism. 

THE  CHAIRAIAN : I think  the  gentlemen  fully  appreciate  the  desire  of  all 

here  to  bring  about  a satisfactory  result  of  this  conference.  While  in  the  heat 
of  argument  perhaps  some  expressions  have  been  used  that  are  not  perhaps  ex- 
actly parliamentary,  I think  every  one  feels  that  the  evils,  all  of  them,  are  not  evils 
for  which  the  employees  alone  or  the  employer  alone  is  responsible,  and  that  the 
only  way  to  overcome  them  is  by  sincere  co-operation  to  that  end. 

MR.  SCHLESSINGER : It  is  true  that  the  time  for  adjournment  has  arrived, 

but  you  heard,  one  of  our  propositions  is  that  we  are  permitted  to  work  two  and 
a half  hours  overtime.  Now,  I would  be  very  much  in  favor  of  working  overtime 
to-night  and  getting  through  with  the  rest  of  the  proposition. 

MR.  COklEN : We  are  not  here  to  tire  each  other  out.  We  are  trying  to  get 

honest  conclusions,  not  hasty  conclusions. 

MR.  SCHLESSINGER:  I say  that  the  proposition  to-night  would  take  only 
a few  minutes. 

THE  CHAIRMAN  : That  has  been  already  determined  on. 

MR.  COHEN  ; May  I suggest  that  we  meet  at  eleven  o’clock  to-morrow  morn- 
ing, so  as  to  give  me  time  to  talk  with  my  people. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Very  well. 

Whereupon  the  meeting  then  adjourned  until  Friday,  July  29,  1910,  at  ii  a.  m. 


73 


MINUTES  OF  SESSION  OF  JULY  29,  1910. 

Room  5208,  Metropolitan  Life  Insurance  Company  Building^, 

New  York  City,  July  29,  1910. 

Met  pursuant  to  adjournment  at  ii  o’clock  a.  m. 

Presekt  : 

riie  chairman,  both  committees  and  counsel  as  before. 


MORNING  SESSION. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Gentlemen,  unless  there  is  some  objection,  we  will  call 

the  meeting  to  order. 

MR.  COHEN ; May  I ask,  Mr.  London,  if  you  have  prepared  your  suggestion? 

MR.  LONDON : On  the  subject  of  deposits? 

MR.  COHEN : Yes. 

MR.  LENNON : I desire  to  say  that  on  the  subject  of  deposit,  that  we  will 

withdraw  it  for  the  present. 

MR.  COHEN:  You  will  withdraw  it? 

MR.  LENNON  : Eor  the  present. 

MR.  COHEN  : I desire  to  report  to  you,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  I have  been  in 

caucus  with  my  people  all  the  morning.  I only  got  the  minutes  shortly  before 
eleven  o’clock,  and  I want  to  say  in  the  most  serious  way  that  I can  report  progress 
to  you,  sir. 

THE  CHAIRMAN  : That  is  good. 

MR.  COHEN : That  on  every  proposition  that  has  been  thus  far  submitted 

I think  we  shall  be  able  to  meet  our  friends  more  than  half  way,  and  in  view  of  the 
fact  that  there  are  only  two  more  subjects — the  wages 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Three. 

MR.  COHEN  : And  wages  and  sanitary  conditions — before  we  take  up  the 

matter  of  methods,  and  in  view  of  the  fact  that  our  decision  with  reference  to  some 
of  the  things  is  interlinked  with  suggestions  that  may  come  under  the  question  of 
low  wages,  I think  that  we  might  proceed  to  the  discussion  of  those,  and  if  we  can 
flo  them  before  recess,  I think  by  this  afternoon  I can  have  for  the  consideration  of 
the  conference  our  response  to  the  suggestions  that  have  been  made  across  the 
t.able.  There  are  one  or  two  things  that  I want  to  look  over  the  minutes  for,  but 
I can  say  with  the  greatest  assurance  that  we  are  making  progress  ver}'  rapidly. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Your  suggestion  is  that  we  take  up  now  the  question  of 

wages  ? 

MR.  COHEN  : First,  the  wages,  and  then  the  sanitary  conditions.  Mr.  Len- 

non, is  that  method  of  proceeding  agreeable  to  you  ? 

MR.  LENNON  : It  is  acceptable,  except  I would  prefer  to  get  a definite  answer 

this  morning  about  the  important  questions  discussed  yesterday. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : I understand  that  all  the  answers  to  all  of  those,  as  far 

as  the  matters  themselves,  will  all  be  discussed  thoroughly,  with  a view  to  reach- 
ing a conclusion  before  we  take  up  the  question  of  methods. 

MR.  COHEN  : May  I say  this,  and  I want  Mr.  London  to  accept  my  assurance 

in  good  faith,  that  I want  to  make  suggestions  or  responses  to  the  suggestions 
made  by  the  other  side  that  I know  will  be  acceptable  to  our  members.  Of  course, 
we  must  go  back  to  our  association  and  get  their  approval,  just  as  the  other  side 
must  go  back  to  their  members  to  get  their  approval,  for  what  they  recommend, 
and  I want  my  people  to  recommend  things  that  their  association  will,  we  believe, 
approve  of.  Now,  in  that  connection  I may  say  that  I have  secured  a tentative 

74 


decision  on  practically  nearly  every  matter,  but  before  it  is  presented  here  I want  to 
be  sure  that  it  is  thoroughly  understood  and  put  in  such  form  that  we  can  stand  by 
it.  May  I say,  also,  in  that  connection,  that  we  do  not  understand  that  anything 
that  has  been  presented  here  thus  far  as  a remedy  is  presented  in  the  nature  of  an 
ultimatum — a final  decision? 

MR.  LENNON  : That  is  understood. 

MR.  COHEN ; And  we  do  not  understand  that  when  we  come  back  with  our 
presentment  it  will  be  in  the  nature  of  an  ultimatum.  We  simply  endeavor  to 
formulate  for  our  side  something  to  save  time. 

MR.  LENNON  ; That  is  satisfactory.  On  the  subject  of  wages,  we  realize 
in  a trade  where  the  piecework  system  prevails,  and  where,  speaking  roughly — 
where  approximately  there  are  three-quarters  of  the  employees  engaged  in  the 
trade  as  pieceworkers,  it  is  almost  impossible  to  fix  any  definite  or  exact  standard 
of  wages.  For  the  week  workers  we  have  prepared  a scale  of  wages,  and  this 
scale  of  wages  is  insisted  on  in  all  the  cases  where  employers  have  signed  the 
union  agreement  as  submitted  to  the  trade.  Now,  I will  submit  to  you  this 

MR.  COHEN : I have  a copy.  That  is  paragraph  2 of  the  contract? 

MR.  LENNON:  Yes. 

MR.  COHEN  : That  means  the  minimum  wage  which  you  think  should  be 

paid  to  all  week  workers  in  this  classification? 

MR.  LONDON : Yes.  I will  read  it  for  the  stenographer. 

MR.  COHEN : Yes. 

MR.  LONDON : The  following  is  the  minimum  scale  of  wages  for  week 

hands : Cutters,  not  less  than  $26.00  per  week ; skirt  cutters,  not  less  than  $22.00 

per  week;  jacket  pressers,  $22.00;  under  pressers,  $18.00;  skirt  pressers,  $22.00; 
skirt  under  pressers,  $16.00.  Then  I have  the  words  “piece  presser.”  When  I 
inserted  that  word  I was  told  about  the  existence  of  the  piece  presser.  I did  no? 
know  how  to  spell  it,  and  I spelled  it  “p-i-e-c-e” — piece  presser,  $14.00. 

MR  MEYER : What  does  that  mean  ? 

MR.  LONDON : Those  that  are  pressing  small  pieces.  Reefer  pressers, 
$18.00;  reefer  under  pressers,  $14.00;  sample  makers,  $24.00;  skirt  makers, 
$24.00. 

A VOICE:  Skirt  sample  makers. 

MR.  LONDON : Skirt  sample  makers ; skirt  makers  working  by  the  week. 

Skirt  basters,  $15.00;  skirt  finishers,  $12.00,  and  buttonhole  makers  not  less  than 
$1.10  per  100  buttonholes.  That  is  so  far  as  the  week  workers  are  concerned. 

MR.  COHEN : May  we  take  that  up  separately? 

MR.  LONDON : No,  I think  that  we  should  take  it  together,  because  we  are 

not  going  to  discuss  it  now.  I suppose  you  will  take  these  demands  in  your 
taucus  and  discuss  it  there.  I want  to  make  a statement  in  reference  to  the  piece- 
workers. 

MR.  COHEN : All  right. 

MR.  LONDON : Now,  we  have  tried  to  make  some  standard  for  the  piece- 
workers, the  principal  object  being  to  promote  uniformity.  We  realize  that  if  in 
one  place  the  employee  will  get  for  a garment  $5.00,  while  in  the  next  place  he 
will  get  for  a garment  which  involves  the  same  amount  of  work,  $2.50,  that  the 
condition  of  the  trade  will  remain  just  about  as  it  is  now.  Such  really  was  our 
experience  in  the  past,  and  in  many  cases  where  the  Union  would  get  hold  of  an 
employer  and  would  compel  the  employer  to  pay  higher  wages,  still  all  around 
him  lower  wages  were  paid,  so  that  the  Union  employer  was  at  a disadvantage. 
We  adopted  this  suggestion  to  the  trade,  the  suggestion  which  we  present  to  you 
now. 

MR.  COHEN  : Paragraph  20? 


75 


MR.  LONDON : Paragraph  20,  that  the  prices  for  piecework  under  the  con- 

tract are  based  on  the  proposition  that  the  average  pieceworker — the  average 
skilful  pieceworker  shall  be  able  to  make  75  cents  per  hour. 

MR.  COHEN:  You  eliminate  the  last  sentence,  do  you? 

MR.  LONDON : Well,  when  we — yes,  that  is  a method  of  regulation. 

MR.  COHEN : A method  of  regulation,  I see.  Now,  may  I ask,  not  for  the 

purpose  of  agreeing  upon  methods,  but  merely  to  emphasize  the  importance  of 
this  problem,  Mr.  Referee — of  course  every  decent  manufacturer  realizes  the 
importance  of  having  his  standard  of  wage  throughout  the  industry,  and  the  bet- 
ter class  of  manufacturer  is  always  anxious  to  have  the  poorer  class  of  manufac- 
facturer  conform  to  that  standard  of  wage,  and  it  makes  small  difference  whether 
it  is  50  cents  or  $1.00  more,  provided  it  is  carried  out  throughout  the  industry. 
Now,  one  of  the  things  that  we  welcome,  in  this  situation,  is  the  possibility  of 
esiablishing  standard  rates  of  compensation  throughout  the  industry.  We  want, 
if  we  are  going  to  agree  to  pay  your  people  a certain  standard — we  want  to  be 
sure  that  our  competitor,  Mr.  Dyche,  will  not  be  able  to  get  the  work  done  for 
’css  than  that ; that  is  the  difficulty.  So  long  as  this  has  been  left,  not  as  a mat- 
ter of  regulation,  but  as  a matter  of  competition,  there  is  nothing  to  prevent  the 
worker  from  working  for  whatever  he  can  get,  and  there  is  nothing  to  prevent 
the  employer  from  cutting  him  down  to  the  lowest  terms,  and  we  are  driven  of 
necessity  to  compete  with  the  others  who  are  paying  the  lowest  wages,  so  that  the 
result  of  it  is  the  constant  lowering  of  the  wage  instead  of  increasing  it.  We 
recognize  that  just  as  you  must  have  recognized  it  before,  and  I want  to  say  that 
in  this  connection  of  the  wage  standard  we  seek  in  the  organization  of  your  Union 
one  of  the  strongest  means  by  which  to  prevent  the  inexorable  law  of  competition, 
reducing  the  standard  of  living  in  your  industry  and  we  welcome  your  Union  for 
that,  if  not  for  a great  many  other  things.  All  we  want  though  is  some  reasonable 
expectation  that  the  Union  is  going  to  live  up  to  its  part  and  to  this  promise  to  us. 
I do  not  mean  to  take  up  at  all  the  question  of  bad  faith  on  your  part.  I am  going 
to  assume  that  both  parties  intend  to  preserve  the  highest  kind  of  good  faith  in 
carrying  out  all  agreements  here,  but  the  important  practical  question,  you  see,  is 
how  are  you,  with  the  very  best  intentions  in  the  world,  going  to  make  these  stand- 
ards prevail  throughout  the  industry,  because  we  are  afraid  that  the  tendency 
will  be  to  non-unionize  the  workers  in  the  industry.  Your  Union  men  will  be 
bound  by  this  agreement  not  to  work  for  less  than  the  amount  which  we  agree 
upon  in  this  conference,  but  if  there  is  no  work  to  be  had,  except  among  the  poorer 
manufacturers  who  are  bidding  down  the  employees,  won’t  the  inducement  be  for 
the  Union  man  to  become  a non-Union  man,  and  to  go  to  work  in  these  shops  at 
less  than  the  standard  wage,  and  compete  with  us?  What  I want  to  have  at  this 
point  is  not  that  we  consider  the  method  of  working  it  out,  but  what  I want  to  make 
of  it  to  ask  of  the  men  on  the  other  side  of  the  table  is  whether  they  have  con- 
sidered that  problem,  and  whether  they  have  anything  in  mind  with  reference  to 
it,  because  it  will  facilitate  us  greatly  if  we  can  come  in  afterward — we  may  not 
accept  these  specific  terms,  bat  whatever  terms  we  agree  upon,  it  will  facilitate  us 
if  we  can  feel  reasonably  certain  that  those  are  going  to  be  the  standard  prices 
for  week  workers  throughout  the  industry,  and  what  we  want  to  know  is  whether 
you  fellows  on  the  other  side  of  the  fence  have  thought  about  it,  and  if  so,  your 
ideas  about  it. 

MR.  LENNON : I want  to  say,  gentlemen,  that  this  raises  one  of  the  greatest 

principles  that  has  to  do  with  organized  labor,  and  we  find  this,  that  while  in  gen- 
eral, the  tendency  of  wages  is  towards  the  lower  pay,  that  where  there  is  estab- 
lished an  organization  that  fixes  a minimum  wage,  that  we  absolutely  overcome 


76 


the  general  principle  which  applies  generally  in  the  industry,  and  that  the  ten- 
dency is  toward  the  Union  wage. 

MR.  COHEN : May  I interrupt  you  a moment? 

MR.  LENNON ; Yes. 

MR.  COHEN : But  does  that  apply  in  industries  where  the  constant  supply 

is  so  rapidly  increasing  as  in  yours ; where  each  steamer  brings  over  so  many  more 
operators  among  the  Italians  and  the  Russians? 

MR.  LENNON : Yes,  we  think  it  will. 

MR.  COHEN:  Have  you  studied  that,  Mr.  Lennon? 

MR.  LENNON : Perhaps  not  as  much  as  some  of  the  other  men  here  may 

have  studied  it. 

MR.  COHEN : I would  like  to  hear  from  Mr.  Dyche  on  that  after  you  get 

through,  if  you  don’t  mind. 

jN.IR.  LENNON : Yes,  I am  a short  talker.  The  cigarmakers  are  facing  a 

condition  that  is  worse  than  even  the  cloakmakers. 

THE  CHAIRMAN  : Very  much. 

MR.  LENNON : And  in  spite  of  that  fact  that  they  are  contending  against 

the  greatest  combination  and  trust  that  to-day  exists  in  the  world,  not  excepting 
the  Steel  Trust,  because  that — I cannot  explain  it  here,  but  it  is  greater  so  far 
as  that  industry  is  concerned  than  the  Steel  Trust  is  in  the  steel  trade,  and  not  only 
are  they  against  that  proposition  where  tenement  house  work  still  applies  and 
where  child  and  woman  labor  still  applies,  but  they  are  against  the  proposition  of 
the  free  importation  of  cigars  from  the  Philippine  Islands,  and  yet  there  is  abso- 
lutely no  desertion  from  the  ranks  of  the  Cigar  Makers’  Union,  and  the  Trust  em- 
ployees are  gradually  coming  up  to  the  Wage  standard  of  the  Cigarmakers’  Inter- 
national Union,  continuously,  showing  that  the  effect  upon 

MR.  COHEN : Water  reaches  its  highest  level. 

MR.  LENNON : Yes,  it  does  in  this  case — showing  that  where  a standard 
of  wages  is  fixed,  and  men  naturally  and  of  necessity  live  next  door  to  each  other, 
and  the  non-Union  man  or  the  Union  man  sees  that  his  neighbor  is  getting  the 
standard  of  wages,  he  does  not  seek  to  reduce  the  wages ; he  seeks  to  raise  his  own 
to  the  same  level,  and  if  the  standard  of  wages  can  be  agreed  upon,  which  I be- 
lieve it  can,  I wdl  tell  you  that  instead  of  the  cut-throat  policy  which  has  been 
pursued,  the  Union,  especially  with  the  assistance  of  a considerable  number  of  the 
manufacturers,  will  not  only  be  able  to  hold  that  standard  of  wages  in  New  York, 
but  it  will  be  able  to  hold  it  in  some  other  cities.  I know  something  about  the 
general  industry,  and  I know  something  about  your  industry.  I do  not  mean  that 
in  detail.  I know,  for  instance,  that  Cleveland  is  coming  fast  in  the  cloak  making 
business — faster  than  any  other  city  in  the  United  States  outside  of  New  York. 
Some  of  your  men  may  not  believe  it,  but  I know  what  I am  talking  about  in  that 
respect.  There  are  a number  of  other  cities,  none  of  them  growing  quite  as  fast 
as  Cleveland  in  the  industry,  but  Chicago  and  St.  Louis  and  Cincinnati,  to  a small 
degree  as  yet,  and  Philadelphia  and  Baltimore  and  Boston  and  some  other  cities. 
Now,  if  a standard  of  wages  can  be  fixed  in  New  York,  then  it  is  not  only  pos- 
sible, but  it  is  almost  as  certain  as  anything  can  be  in  industrial  life,  that  this  same 
organization  can  go  to  these  other  cities  and  put  them  on  the  same  standard,  and 
not  drag  down  the  business  in  New  York,  and  not  take  the  business  away  from 
New  York,  but  with  the  advantages  of  New  York  as  a market,  and  with  the  ad- 
vantages of  New  York  as  a market,  and  with  the  advantages  of  it  not  only  as  a 
market  for  buying,  but  as  a market  for  selling,  eliminate  what  is  the  greatest 
danger  to  the  cloak  and  suit  manufacturers  of  New  York  city,  and  that  is  that  the 
trade  will  be  diverted  to  other  cities.  I know  by  talking  to  business  men  that 
they  do  not  believe  there  is  any  such  danger,  as  a rule,  but  I have  known  indus- 

77 


tries  to  be  absolutely  diverted  from  some  cities  to  others  entirely — almost  wiped 
out  of  existence,  and  gone  to  other  cities,  and  there  is  nothing  in  this  whole  con- 
troversy more  essential  to  you  men  on  that  side  of  the  table  than  that  there  should 
be  an  effective  organization  with  a standard  of  wages  in  the  City  of  New  York, 
but  there  should  be  the  same  standard  in  the  other  cities  of  the  country  where 
cloaks  and  skirts  are  manufactured. 

MR.  COHEN ; Now,  on  that  point,  while  you  are  right  on  it,  may  I ask — 

of  course,  I do  not  want  to  burden  you.  I simply  want  an  expression 

MR.  LENNON:  No. 

MR.  COHEN : May  I ask  you  whether  you  are  prepared  to  give  us  reason- 

able assurance  that  if  we  adopt  this  nominal  standard  here,  your  organization, 
which  is  National,  will  do  its  best  to  see  that  that  standard  prevails,  making,  of 
course,  due  allowance  for  local  conditions  ? 

MR.  LENNON : I am  not  in  the  industry,  but  if  the  cloak  trade  wants  my 

services  in  the  other  cities,  I will  give  up  everything  else  to  spend  the  next  year 
or  two  in  that  work. 

MR.  COHEN : That  helps  some. 

MR.  LENNON : Everything  else.  I am  giving  up  work  now  that  is  worth 

dollars  where  this  is  worth  pennies. 

MR.  COHEN : This  is  the  most  important  strike  on  now. 

MR.  LENNON:  I mean  so  far  as  my  pocketbook  is  concerned,  sir. 

MR.  COHEN:  I understand. 

MR.  LENNON:  And  I know  that  I can  pledge  the  organization,  that 

they  will  immediately  start  with  efforts  to  organize  all  the  other  cities  of  the 
country  and  put  them  on  the  same  standard;  not  a lower  standard,  but  that 
same  standard  that  may  be  used  in  the  City  of  New  York. 

MR.  COHEN : I want  to  hear  from  Mr.  Dyche. 

MR.  DYCHE:  It  is  true,  as  counsel  for  the  other  side  stated,  that  we 

are  confronted  with  a situation  of  emigration  from  people  to  our  country 
of  a lower  standard,  who  come  to  this  country  and  are  willing  to  take  lower 
wages,  and  the  manulacturers  are  willing  to  take  advantage  of  this.  But 
you  must  not  forget  the  fact — I am  speaking  for  the  Jewish  makers — we 
know  that  whatever  the  faults  of  our  race  may  be,  they  are  all  energetic  and 
all  eager  for  a high  standard  of  living,  and  to  get  out  of  their  wages  as  much 
as  possible.  There  are  a number  of  people  who  are  satisfied  with  what  they 
get,  but  our  people  are  not  that  way.  The  immigrant  who  comes  in  with 
a penny  in  his  pocket,  that  will  accept  $5.00  a week,  is  as  anxious  to  get 
$25.00  a week  as  I am,  but  there  is  not  the  possibility.  The  object  of  the 
Union  is  to  give  our  people  a chance  to  realize  their  expectations;  that  is, 
to  get  more  for  their  labor.  That  is  what  they  are  all  trying  for.  Of  course, 
the  difficulty  why  we  have  not  succeeded  up  to  now  has  been  largely  and 
mostly  the  opposition  on  the  part  of  the  manufacturers.  They  have  opposed 
the  Union.  Not  because  of  any  principle;  I mean  to  say,  because  they  do 
not  like  the  Union  itself,  but  because  the  Union  gives  a chance  to  the  people 
to  realize  the  expectation  for  higher  wages.  Now,  if  we  will  have  no  oppo- 
sition on  the  part  of  the  bulk  of  the  manufacturers  in  the  City  of  New 
York  against  this  in.strument,  which  enables  us  to  arrive  at  a standard  of 
wages,  it  will  be  a comparatively  easy  matter  for  us  to  raise  wages  through- 
out the  city,  and  not  only  throughout  the  city,  but  throughout  the  country. 
I may  tell  you  this  in  all  confidence,  that  it  requires  but  a telegram  from  me 
to  stop  most  of  the  cities  in  a moment’s  notice,  who  are  awaiting  the  result 
of  this  strike.  I can  assure  you  that  as  soon  as  this  strike  is  over,  and  as 
soon  as  any  standard  is  established  to  our  satisfaction,  we  will  at  once  see 


78 


that  other  cities  will  do  the  very  same  thing.  Our  union  is  best  concerned 
with  the  question  of  the  cloak  industry.  We  have  been  in  it  four  years,  and 
have  devoted  four  years  of  our  attention  to  solving  this  problem,  this  prob- 
lem of  establishing  a Union  standard  of  wages,  and  the  energy  of  our  Union 
has  been  directed  for  years  to  no  other  purpose  except  of  establishing  this 
standard,  and  I think  to-day,  by  reason  of  this  general  strike,  we  are  in  a 
position  to  establish  it,  and  if  the  manufacturers  will  in  any  way  co-operate 
with  us  to  have  a strong  Union,  the  stronger  the  Union  the  easier  it  will 
be  for  us  to  establish  this  standard.  We  do  understand  just  as  well  as  you 
that  we  cannot  make  one  class  of  manufacturers  abide  by  the  high  wages, 
while  the  other  one  will  pay  low  wages.  We  know  that  as  well  as  you  do, 
and  it  is  to  our  interest,  and  we  have  no  other  interest  in  this  world,  and  the 
very  reason  for  our  existence  is  to  establish  a uniform  standard  of  wages  as 
far  as  we  can. 

MR.  COHEN : I think  you  have  made  your  point. 

MR.  DYCHE:  We  have  no  other  object,  in  fact. 

MR.  COHEN:  Now,  gentlemen,  that  is  one  of  the  most  helpful  things — 

that  and  what  Mr.  Lennon  has  said — toward  establishing  cordial  relations 
between  our  Association  and  yours,  because  we  have  come  to  the  conviction 
on  our  side  that  the  organization  on  our  side  is  necessary  for  meeting  just 
such  situations  as  this,  and  we  feel  that  we  cannot  solve  these  problems  with- 
out your  co-operation  and  without  your  support,  and  we  do  not  want  to 
have  any  business  dealings  with  you  unless  you  are  a strong  organization, 
capable  of  effectively  carrying  out  whatever  you  agree  to.  Now,  you  must 
realize,  Mr.  Lennon,  that  if  we  were  to  agree  here  upon  high  wages,  that 
are  high  in  the  industry  throughout  the  country,  that  nothing  would  con- 
tribute so  much  to  Cleveland’s  taking  the  supremacy  in  the  cloak  trade  from 
New  York  as  for  us  to  establish  those  rates  of  wages,  while  the  rates  of 
wages  in  Cleveland  remain  the  same.  If  we  were  to  establish — I am  informed 
by  one  of  the  men  on  our  side  of  the  table — the  rates  per  hour  for  piece- 
work that  has  been  suggested  here,  while  that  rate  should  not  prevail 
throughout  the  entire  country,  our  business  would  be  diverted  to  those  other 
cities  within  a short  while,  and  it  seems  to  me,  gentlemen,  that  it  is  only 
fair  to  ask  of  you  that  in  the  event  that  we  agree  to  a certain  stand,  you 
pledge  yourseUes  to  enforce  those  standards  throughout  the  country  as 
well  as  throughout  the  city.  We  realize  that  the  same  amount  of  money 
may  not  be  the  same  standard,  because  in  other  cities  the  cost  of  living  may 
be  less,  and  we  cannot  reasonably  insist  that  wages  be  the  same  in  dollars 
and  cents  in  Cleveland  or  other  cities  as  they  are  here,  but  I think  we  have 
the  right  to  insist  that  if  we  are  to  raise  the  wages  here,  upon  a substantial 
pledge  on  your  part  of  taking  into  account  local  conditions,  you  will  see 
to  it  that  the  wages  throughout  the  country  for  your  people — of  course,  you 
cannot  bind  the  non-Union  men — for  your  people  shall  be  maintained  at 
that  standard,  just  as  v'e  propose  to  insist  that  the  members  of  our  Associa- 
tion shall  observe  that  standard  here.  Gentlemen,  we  have  to  run  our  busi- 
ness; we  have  capital  invested;  we  are  glad  to  pay  our  people  well.  There 
are  some  very  humane  people  in  the  cloak  business,  although  it  may  be  hard 
in  times  of  excitement  to  believe  that;  but,  after  all,  you  are  concerned  by 
the  limitations  of  your  side,  and  we  are  concerned  by  the  limitations  of  ours, 
and  unless  we  meet  the  law  of  competition  by  the  law  of  co-operation,  the 
competition  will  survive,  and  we  will  be  hurt  just  as  you  will  be  hurt.  I think 
it  is  one  of  the  most  encouraging  things  of  this  conference,  Mr.  Chairman, 

79 


that  we  have  had  this  assurance  from  Mr.  Lennon  and  Mr.  Dyche,  so  far. 
I am  quite  prepared  now  to  take  up  the  next  subject  of  discussion. 

MR.  SCHLESSINGER:  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Schlessinger. 

MR.  SCHLESSINGER:  The  same  question  that  was  asked  by  Counselor 

Cohen  was  asked  to  me  several  years  ago  by  the  various  manufacturers  in 
Chicago,  by  the  various  manufacturers  in  Cleveland,  Cincinnati,  and,  in  fact, 
all  over  the  country,  vherever  I have  had  a chance  to  get  together  with  the 
employers.  They  all  said  the  same  thing.  You  will  probably  succeed  in 
getting  higher  wages  from  us — that  was  the  way  they  all  said — but  are  you 
sure  you  will  try  to  get  the  same  thing  from  our  competitors,  and  if  you 
would  not  get  the  same  thing  from  our  competitors,  the  result  would  be 
we  will  go  out  of  business.  They  practically  brought  up  the  same  question 
that  you  brought  up  now,  and  I want  to  say  that  they  were  perfectly  justified. 
I say  the  Chicago  manufacturers  and  Cleveland  manufacturers  and  manufac- 
turers in  any  of  the  other  cities  in  the  country  were  perfectly  justified  in 
asking  this  question.  Of  course,  you  gentlemen  are  not  entitled  to  the  right 
to  ask  this  question,  because  you  are  the  competitors.  You  are  competing 
against  every  manufacturer  in  the  country.  There  are  gentlemen  here  that 
actually  have  brought  down  tlie  trade  to  such  a state  that  it  is  absolutely 
impossible  for  them  to  make  much  profit — absolutely  impossible  for  our  men 
to  make  a living.  There  are  gentlemen  in  this  room  here — I do  not  mention 
any  names 

MR.  COHEN:  Do  not  say  men  in  this  room;  say  men  in  the  industry. 

MR.  SCHLESSINGER:  There  are  men  in  the  industry  that  turn  out 

garments  so  cheap  that  the  manufacturers  in  Chicago  cannot  get  the  material 
for  that  price.  I know  that  to  be  a fact,  and  I can  prove  it  to  you  if  necessary. 
I am  willing  to  prove  to  you  that  really  30  per  cent,  of  the  cloak  makers 
in  Cleveland  and  in  Cincinnati  and  about  15  per  cent,  of  the  cloak  makers 
in  Chicago,  Chicago  being  the  larger  city — that  is  why  the  percentage  of 
those  that  have  a chance  to  exist  is  smaller — there  they  have  their  own  houses 
really;  they  have  their  own  dwellings.  I have  been  in  Cleveland  and  I have 
studied  conditions  there.  I have  lived  in  Chicago  15  or  16  years,  and  I know 
what  I am  talking  about,  and  I can  verify  all  of  this  with  the  manufacturers 
in  Chicago. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Mr.  Schlessinger,  if  you  have  the  rate  of  wages 

there,  I wish  you  would  furnish  a schedule  of  them  to  us. 

MR.  SCHLESSINGER:  Exactly.  The  cloak  experts  in  Chicago  get 

$26.00  a week,  all  of  th^m ; that  is,  seven  years  ago. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  do  they  do  now? 

MR.  SCHLE.SSINGER:  I have  not  been  in  Chicago  the  last  seven  years. 

I have  been  in  New  York.  The  contract  was  signed  seven  years  ago  with 
all  of  the  Chicago  cloak  manufacturers — all  of  them,  not  a single  one  was  left 
out — a contract  where  every  employer  from  P.  B.  Palmer  & Company  down 
to  the  smallest  man,  from  P.  B.  Palmer  & Company,  that  employs  60  or  65 
or  70  cutters,  to  the  smallest  man  that  employs  one  or  two  cutters.  All  the 
manufacturers  in  Chicago  signed  a contract  for  $20.00  a week  for  pressers. 
That  was  also  seven  years  ago.  That  means  that  seven  years  ago  pressers 
were  getting  in  Chicago  $20.00  a week,  and  when  we  came  together  with 
them  discussing  that  contract  they  asked  the  same  question  that  you  ask 
here  now,  and  I feel  that  they  were  justified,  and  as  a matter  of  fact  they  were 
justified.  A good  many  of  them  did  not  exactly  have  to  go  out  of  business, 
but  came  near  going  out  of  business  because  you  gentlemen  competed 

80 


against  them.  But  you  gentlemen  are  not  justified  to  ask  this  question. 
By  your  granting  these  rates  of  wages  it  would  be  possible  for  people  in 
New  York  to  make  such  a living  as  it  is  possible  for  people  in  Chicago; 
that  is,  our  poeple  would  be  able  to  live  as  well  and  as  good  as  the  people  in 
Chicago;  so  really  you  are  asking  us  a question  that  you  are  not  entitled  to 
ask,  because  you  are  the  competitors. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I would  like,  Mr.  Schlessinger,  if  you  have  the  fig- 

ures, or  are  able  to  furnish  them  before  the  afternoon,  to  give  us  the  present 
rates  of  wages  in  Chicago  and  those  other  cities,  because  I do  not  think  the 
wages  seven  years  ago  would  be  of  much  assistance  to  us  in  fixing  what 
would  be  possible  to-day. 

MR.  SCHLESSINGER:  You  know  that  living  expenses  are  higher  to-day 

than  they  were  seven  years  ago. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : If  you  will  furnish  us  a schedule  with  those  figures 

it  will  be  of  interest  to  all  of  us. 

MR.  SCHLESSINGER:  The  trade  is  being  diverted  to  other  cities,  not 
because  the  manufacturers  are  making  goods  for  lower  prices  than  in  New 
York.  The  reason  that  Glevelaiid  is  becoming  a cloak  market  is  because 
the  Cleveland  storekeepers  are  buying  goods  not  from  New  York  but  from 
Cleveland  manufacturers.  There  was  a time  when  the  manufacturers  used 
to  manufacture  thousands  and  thousands  of  garments  of  one  single  number 
or  several  styles,  but  that  time  has  passed.  The  manufacturers  are  only 
making  now  nearly  as  much  as  they  have  orders  for.  A storekeeper  of 
Cleveland  will  not  go  nowadays  and  get  his  goods  made  in  New  York  when 
he  can  get  it  made  in  Cleveland.  The  reason  that  the  trade  has  been  diverted 
to  Cleveland  and  other  cities  is  not  because  you  people  are  higher  priced, 
but  simply  because  there  is  less  trouble  for  a Cleveland  storekeeper  to  get 
his  goods  in  Cleveland,  and  for  a Chicago  storekeeper  to  get  his  goods  in 
Chicago  than  it  is  in  New  York. 

MR.  COHEN:  Might  I interrupt  you  a moment? 

MR.  SCHLESSHnGER:  Yes,  of  course. 

MR.  COHEN';  Let  us  assume,  agreeing  to  your  point  of  view,  that  it 
was  an  impertinent  question  for  us  to  ask.  Do  you  dissent  from  the  view 
of  Mr.  Dyche  and  Mr.  Lennon  that  it  is  up  to  your  organization  on  your 
side  to  maintain  a standard  of  wages  throughout  the  country  that  is  uniform  ? 
You  can  answer  that  question,  can  you  not? 

MR.  SCHLESSINGER:  Yes,  I am  certainly  in  favor  of  having  a uniform 

wage,  but  I tell  you  how  it  would  be  possible  to  have  a uniform  wage 

MR.  LENNON : Come  to  the  remedy. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : That  question  is  not  in  order  now. 

MR.  COHEN : All  I wanted  to  know  is  whether  the  gentlemen  sub- 

scribed— 

MR.  SCHLESSINGER:  I certainly  do. 

MR.  COHEN : Then  all  of  his  speechifying  is  hard  on  the  stenographer 

and  is  unnecessary. 

MR.  SCHLESSINGER:  All  right. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : I believe  one  of  your  delegates  desires — I do  not 

know  which  one — did  you,  Mr. — I wanted  to  give  opportunity  to  any  of 
your  delegates,  Mr.  Cohen,  because  Mr.  Bloch  wishes  to  speak  next. 

MR.  COHEN ; All  I need  to  do  for  the  purpose  of  expressing  our  side 
of  the  table  is  to  say  that  our  people  strongly  dissent  from  Mr.  Schlessinger’s 
view  as  to  the  nature  of  the  competition  between  Cleveland  and  New  York, 
but  that  is  not  of  vital  consequence  to  this  conference. 

81 


MR.  fjLOCH ; I l)dieve  it  is  possible  to  make  this  suggestion  for  the  con- 
sideration of  the  other  side,  and  that  is  this : I want  to  say  this,  Mr.  Chair- 
man, that  to  show  our  intention  on  last  Tuesday  we  attended  a meeting  at 
Philadelphia;  that  is,  Mr.  Rosenberg,  Mr.  Polakoff  and  myself,  and  also  a 
Mr.  Levinson,  of  Cleveland — we  attended  quite  a large  meeting  there,  and 
the  interest  manifested  by  those  people  at  that  meeting  to  bring  about 
equal  conditions  with  those  existing  in  New  York  was  certainly  great.  Just 
as  Mr.  Dyche  has  said,  all  that  is  required  is  notice  for  them  to  quit  and  go 
out  on  the  same  conditions  that  we  are  demanding  in  New  Y^ork,  and  those 
conditions  will  be  demanded.  This  question  of  Cleveland  and  other  cities 
where  cloaks  are  made,  we  believe  that  if  there  was  any  benefit  to  be  ob- 
tained by  the  cheaper  rent  and  cheaper  living,  that  that  benefit  should  go 
to  the  worker;  not  that  the  employers  of  those  cities  should  say,  “You  are 
living  cheaper  and  your  expenses  are  lower  than  New  Y'ork’’;  and  that  is  the 
reason  we  want  to  make  that  profit.  We  claim  that  the  wages  in  New 
York 

MR.  (fOHlfN  : Let  me  understand  you.  Do  you  mean  to  say  that  if  we 

adopted  this  standard  here,  you  would  be  in  favor  of  adopting  the  same 
standard  throughout  the  country,  regardless  of  the  rental  conditions  that 
exist  there? 

MR.  BLOCH;  That  would  be  my  intention,  but,  of  course,  in  .some  in- 
stances, 1 want  to  say  this : It  may  be  impossible  to  gain  this  at  one  time, 

but  we  want  to  get  as  close  to  it  as  possible.  In  discussing  this  question 
of  wages,  we  consider  that  very  carefully.  We  did  not  consider  the  question 
of  wages  for  the  same  reason  that  we  believed  we  had  to  earn  so  and  so  much 
money,  but  we  believe  that  living  commodities  having  increased  to  such  an 
extent,  and  wages  having  decreased  in  proportion  with  the  increase  of  the 
commodities,  that  a certain  established  rate  must  be  fixed.  We  have  found 
that  that  is  the  contention  on  the  part  of  some  of  the  manufacturers.  For 
instance,  a man  would  say  in  making  them  to  pay  the  same  wages  as  some 
of  the  other  houses  pay — Bella,  Schwartz,  and  so  on — they  would  say,  we  are 
making  a cheaper  line  of  garments.  We  did  not  figure  that.  The  best  judges 
are  the  people  who  have  to  live  on  those  salaries.  We  claim  that  figuring  up 
the  salaries  of  our  people,  that  an  average  of  75  cents  an  hour  would  be  about 
the  average  wage  earned. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Does  the  75  cents  an  hour  mean  for  every  worker,  or 

do  you  distinguish  between  dififerent  degrees  of  skill? 

MR.  BLOCH : It  means  a striking  average  of  the  pieceworker. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Of  course,  75  cents  an  hour,  if  applied  to  all  workers, 

would  give  a very  much  higher  average  than  the  average  that  you  present 
m your  scale  for  week  workers.  I mean,  75  cents  an  hour,  based  upon  the 
eight-hour  day,  which  you  have  assumed  here,  w'ould  come  to  as  much  for 
everybody  as  you  have  named  for  the  highest  minimum  wage.  That  is,  it 
would  give  more. 

MR.  BLOCH;  Well,  I know,  but  we  said  in  our  agreement 

THE  CHAIRMAN ; It  would  give  considerably  more  than  you  have  for 
anybody. 

MR.  BLOCH;  The  striking  average  would  be  75  cents  an  hour. 

THE  CHAIRMAN;  What  do  you  mean  by  “average”? 

MR.  LONDON;  Will  you  please  give  the  floor  to  me  a moment? 

MR.  BLOCH:  Certainly. 


82 


MR.  LONDON : 1 miderstaiid  the  situation,  and  the  other  side  under- 

stands the  situation.  Seventy-five  cents  an  hour  looks  like  an  awful  big 
compensation  for  a tailor. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  There  is  nothing  that  looks  big.  I think  everybody 

should  get  as  much  as  they  can. 

MR.  COHEN : That  amounts  to  $6.75  a day? 

MR.  LONDON:  Six  dollars  and  seventy-five  cents  a day,  but  this  75 

cents  an  hour  or  the  opportunity  to  make  $6  a day,  comes  to  our  men  only 
about  two  or  three  months  during  the  year.  It  has  been  the  curse  of  the 
trade  that  whenever  w^e  w'ould  agree  upon  a certain  price  list  in  the  begin- 
ning of  the  season,  say  at  the  end  of  July,  that  our  men  would  work  on  the 
basis  of  that  price  list  for  two  or  three  months,  and  at  the  end  of  the  season, 
the  less  work  they  w'ould  do  the  smaller  would  be  the  price,  so  not  only  would 
the  piecew'^orker  get  less  w^ork  to  do,  but  his  price  would  be  reduced  at  the 
same  time.  Now,  this  75  cents  an  hour  is  the  dream  of  his  year,  and  he  gets 
it  only  two  or  three  months  during  the  year.  That  is  the  system  that  pre- 
vails to-day,  and  having  this  in  mind,  we  ask  for  the  piecew'orker  75  cents 
an  hour. 

MR.  COHEN : But,  Mr.  London 

THE  CHAIRMAN : I would  like,  for  my  own  information  here,  to  put  a 

few  questions  on  this  to  you  or  to  whoever  is  best  prepared  to  answer  them. 

MR.  LONDON:  Yes. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : I understand  you  now  to  say  that  during  tw'O  or 

three  months  in  the  year  the  workmen,  or  at  least  the  skilled  workmen, 
should  get  75  cents.  Do  you  mean  by  that  to  say  that  he  has  only  two  or 
three  months  work  in  a year,  or  that  during  other  months  those  two  or  three, 
he  is  obliged  to  w'ork  at  a lower  rate  of  compensation? 

MR.  LONDON : Exactly.  During  the  other  months,  as  things  prevail 

now,  he  works  for  a much  lower  compensation. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Now,  is  it — during  how  many  months  in  the  year  do 

you  assume  that  those  men  have  some  work?  I mean,  the  average  man  who 
is  a pieceworker  has  some  work,  regardless  of  how  much  he  is  paid  for  the 
work  ? 

MR.  LONDON : I should  say  in  the  height  of  the  season  or  the  season 

itself,  it  does  not  amount  to  more  than  four  months — both  the  fall  and  the 
spring  season. 

MR.  COHEN:  Four  months  in  the  whole  year? 

MR.  LONDON:  Yes. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  You  say  the  height  of  the  season 

MR,  LONDON:  Yes. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Now,  how  many  m.onths  on  the  average  do  the  men 

whom  you  have  in  mind  now  work  out  of  the  twelve  months? 

MR.  LONDON : Well,  I think  about  four  months  in  the  year  they  do 

very  little  work. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Well,  do  you  mean  that  they  work  at  least  eight 

months  in  the  year? 

MR.  LONDON : Four  mionths  they  work  intensely. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Yes. 

MR.  LONDON : Then  there  are  four  months  w'hen  things  slow'  up, 

and  then  there  is  a period  where  there  is  almosit  no  work  at  all ; next  to 
nothing. 

MR.  COHEN:  May  I interrupt? 


83 


MR.  LONDON : I do  not  want  to  say  that  it  is  divided  into  three  equal 

parts. 

THE  CHAIRMAN ; Mr.  Dyche  thinks  he  can  answer  this.  Are  you  able 
to  answer  that,  Mr.  Dyche? 

MR.  DYCHE:  Yes.  In  figuring  the  prices  we  figured  what  actually  takes 

place  in  the  factories  to-day  v/hen  prices  are  made.  When  we  begin  to 
higgle  and  bargain,  the  man  in  the  factory  who  is  in  authority  to  make  prices 
we  agree  upon  certain  prices  for  certain  garments.  Assuming  this  is  a dol- 
lar, the  reason  we  fix  it  at  a dollar  is  we  take  into  consideration  the  time  it 
takes  of  the  skilled  mechanic.  In  every  shop  to-day,  and  so  it  wall  be  in  the 
future,  if  a garment  is  priced  at  a dollar,  it  will  be  assumed  that  this  garment 
will  be  turned  out  by  the  average  mechanic,  six  in  a day.  It  dues  not  mean 
that  the  slowest  man  who  can  make  two  garments  would  earn  $6.00.  It  means 
for  a man  who  cannot  turn  out  but  two,  he  can  get  only  $2.00.  It  also  means 
that  an  exceedingly  fast  man  who  can  turn  out  ten  garments,  will  make 
$10.  It  is  fixed  at  $6.00  on  the  assumption  that  the  average  meclianic  of 
every  skill  and  speed  can  make  that  specified  price. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  me  ask  you  a few  questions  to  aid  in  my  own 

mind  in  understanding  this  situation.  You  have  taken  here  a basis  for  the 
piecework  which  in  itself  is  altogether  disproportionate  to  the  basis  of  week 
work.  That  is,  at  eight  hours  a day,  every  man  who  wmrks  would,  assuming 
he  is  occupied,  earn  $6.00  a day,  or  $36  a week,  whereas  on  your  list  there 
are  only  a few  select  persons  whom  you  ask  as  much  as  $26  for,  and  they 
go  all  the  way  down  to  $12  or  $14. 

MR.  DYCHE:  Yes. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Now,  that  seems  to  be  a very  unreasonable — assum- 

ing the  one  to  be  correct — the  other  seems  to  be  absolutely  unreasonable, 
unless  your  purpose  is  altogether  to  do  away  with  piecework  and  to  substitute 
week  work.  Now,  I would  like  to  hear  from  Mr.  Dyche — I want  to  put  some 
questions  to  yon.  I would  like  to  hear  why  you  select  that  75  cents  as  a 
general  price  per  week — per  hour  for  all  workmen  at  all  times  of  the  year, 
and  on  all  kinds  of  goods? 

MR.  DYCHE:  I will  explain  that.  In  the  first  place  the  pieceworker 

works  much  less  during  the  year  than  the  week  worker.  \Ve  believe 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Wait  a moment.  Now  right  there,  is  that  a situa- 

tion that  you  desire  to  have  continued? 

MR.  DYCHE:  It  could  not  be  helped  at  present.  We  believe 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Why  not? 

MR.  COHEN:  We  think  it  can  be  helped. 

1 HE  CHAIRMAN:  Why  cannot  it  be  helped?  Take  it  for  instance  in 
some  other  industries — take  for  instance  in  the  boot  and  shoe  industry,  with 
which,  as  I said,  I am  very  familiar,  there  has  been  a constant  tendency  year 
after  year  to  convert  week  work  into  piecework,  and  there  is  practically  now 
in  the  most  advanced  shoe  manufacturers’  establishments  no  work  that  is 
not  done  piecework,  and  what  they  undertake  to  do  in  the  shoe  business,  in 
these  advanced  factories,  is  to  make  the  two  grades  of  work — I mean,  the 
prices  comparable,  so  that  the  manufacturer  may  choose  either  one  or  the 
other. 

MR.  DYCHE:  A'Vith  the  permission  of  the  stenographer,  I will  explain 
that.  The  week  worker  works  steady.  If  he  is  stopped  for  five  or  ten  or 
fifteen  minutes  during  the  day,  he  gets  his  wages.  The  pieceworker,  bv  reason 
of  his  trade,  he  very  seldom  works  continuously.  It  very  seldom  happens 
that  he  can  come  in  at  8 o’clock  in  the  morning  and  work  continuously  until 


84 


the  end  of  the  day.  W e believe  that  by  doing  this  right  through  the  year 
the  pieceworker  will  not  in  the  long  run  make  more  than  the  week  worker. 
The  nature  of  the  work  of  the  pieceworker  is  such  that  he  cannot  work  stead- 
ily. He  is  more  liable  to 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Interruptions? 

MR.  DYCHE:  Interruptions.;  and  loss  of  wages  than  the  week  worker. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  He  may  be  liable  to  them? 

MR.  DYCHE:  He  is  liable  now. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : He  is,  but  it  does  not  follow  that  that  condition  exists. 
That  very  thing  has  been  met  in  other  industries.  It  depends  upon  the  conditions 
of  the  shop. 

MR.  DYCHE : It  also  depends  upon  the  nature  of  his  trade.  It  is  unavoidable, 

to  some  extent. 

THE  CHAIRMAN ; I do  not  see,  Mr.  Dyche,  why  it  is  unavoidable  that  the 
way  a man  is  paid  should  affect  the  quantity  that  he  has  in  a year.  It  may  be  a 
habit — it  may  be  a very  bad  habit  that  now  prevails  in  the  business,  but  I am  at  a 
loss  to  see  why  it  is  essential.  I should  suppose  that  Mr.  Lefcourt,  or  any  one 
of  these  manufacturers  might  perfectly  well  say,  if  they  have  a man  now  work- 
ing by  the  week,  beginning  on  next  Monday,  you  shall  be  paid  by  the  piece.  I 
do  not  see  why  it  is  not  possible.  It  may  be  perfectly  well  that  the  business  has 
been  run  differently  in  the  past,  but  I do  not  see  why  it  is  not  possible. 

MR.  POLAKOFF:  When  we  figure  the  hours  for  the  pieceworkers  at  75 

cents  an  hour,  it  should  be  understood  that  he  makes  only  35  cents  an  hour,  and 
I will  explain  why  it  amounts  only  to  35  cents  an  hour.  Now,  the  operator  or  the 
tailor,  he  comes  in  the  morning  to  work,  he  hasn’t  got  any  work.  He  goes  to  the 
foreman  at  half  past  eight.  It  means  half  an  hour  less  than  the  eight  hours 
Then  he  goes  to  the  foreman ; the  foreman  gives  him  the  bundle.  Sometimes  it 
happens  that  he  has  to  run  after  the  foreman  for  half  an  hour  until  he  gets  the 
bundle.  That  means  an  hour  lost  on  the  day ; that  means  seven  hours.  Then 
when  he  gets  the  bundle,  he  goes  over  to  the  finisher,  or  perhaps  he  is  a tailor  him- 
self, he  has  to  take  the  goods  and  go  over  to  the  presser  and  wait  until  the  presser 
will  sponge  him  the  goods.  When  they  are  making  the  prices,  it  is  understood 
that  the  presser  will  get  paid  for  the  pressing  work;  at  the  same  time  the  tailor 
is  also  a presser.  He  is  compelled  to  do  his  own  pressing  between  the  times. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Well,  now,  Mr.  Polakoff,  I understand  these  points,  but 
here  is  a point  that  I would  like  to  have  both  you  .and  Mr.  Dyche  or  anyone  else 
answer.  It  is  this:  Y'ou  have  got  here  on  this  schedule  that  Mr.  London  fur- 
nished with  the  contract,  he  recognizes  different  degrees  of  skill  are  entitled  to 
different  compensation.  He  says  the  cutters  ought  to  have  $26  a week,  and  cer- 
tain other  persons  ought  not  to  have  more  than  $12,  as  a minimum.  Now,  while 
that  is  laid  down,  the  suggestion  is  made  that  if  for  some  reason  this  man  hap- 
pens to  work  by  the  piece,  the  cutter  and  the  skirt  finisher,  instead  of  one  getting 
twice  as  much  as  the  other,  or  more  than  twice  as  much  as  the  other,  they  ought 
to  be  paid  the  same. 

MR.  POLAKOFF:  Yes. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Now,  I am  at  a loss  to  see  the  logic  of  that  situation. 

MR.  POLAKOFF : To  become  a cutter  and  to  get  $26  a week,  you  have  at 

least  to  work  in  the  trade  six  or  seven  or  eight  years.  A girl  who  is  working 
on  ladies’  waists,  or  she  is  working  on  shirts,  she  is  able  to  come  into  the  shop  and 
to  be  a baster  on  skirts  as  soon  as  she  can  only  handle  a needle  in  her  hand,  and 
she  is  able  to  baste  the  bottoms  or  baste  the  pleats  on  the  skirt,  and  as  soon  as  she 
is  Avorking  from  eight  o’clock  in  the  morning  until  five-thirty  at  night  and  she  is 
doing  her  work,  she  is  entitled  to  get  at  least  two  dollars  a day. 

85 


I 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  I admist  those  differences  between  $26  and  $12  1 am 

assuming  that  this  is  correct. 

MR.  DYCHE:  If  you  will  let  me  finish  my  argument. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I will. 


MR.  DYCHE:  I want  to  say  that  in  the  case  of  the  week  worker,  it  is  to  the 

interest  of  the  firm  to  see  that  that  man  or  that  woman  should  not  lose  a minute’s 
time  in  the  work,  but  it  is  not  in  the  interest  of  the  firm  to  see  that  a pieceworker 
shall  be  constantly  employed,  and  this  will  remain  for  all  time  to  come,  and  this 
being  the  case,  the  piece  worker  is  liable  to  lose  a great  deal  of  time  in  his  work, 
so  that  this  75  cents  an  hour  for  actual  work  will,  in  the  long  run,  mean  only  35 
cents,  because  of  the  inevitable  loss  of  time  due  to  the  nature  of  his  work. 

MR.  LONDON : Due  to  the  .system  prevailing  in  piecework. 

MR.  DYCHE:  Yes,  due  to  the  system  prevailing  in  piecework.  What  I want 

to  say  is  that  with  the  best  intention  on  the  part  of  the  firm,  the  piece  worker  will 
always  be  left  to  look  out  himself  to  see  that  he  shall  be  employed,  and  not  to  the 
foreman,  while  with  the  week  worker,  it  is  the  business  of  the  foreman  to  do  all 
he  can  to  see  that  he  shall  be  employed  every  moment  from  the  time  he  comes  into 
the  factory  until  the  moment  he  leaves  it. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  You  have  not  answered  the  other  question,  Mr.  Dyche; 

you  have  overlooked  it.  You  have  not  answered  this  question,  and  this  is  as- 
suming that  the  differences  in  compensation  are  proper  for  the  different  classes 
of  skill — why,  when  you  come  to  piecework,  do  you  have  a standard  which  is  the 
same  for  all  classes  of  skill?  What  is  your  answer  to  that  question? 

MR.  DYCHE:  The  less  skilled  man  will  turn  out  less  work,  and  if  he  gets  a 


dollar  a garment- 


THE  CHAIRMAN : That  does  not  answer  the  question,  Mr.  Dyche. 

MR.  ROSENBERG:  Will  you  allow  me  to  give  a better  explanation? 

THE  CHAIRMAN : I should  be  delighted  to  have  you. 

MR.  ROSENBERG:  I believe  I will  be  able  to  explain  to  the  counsellors  on 

both  sides,  and  also  to  the  manufacturers  here  present. 

MR.  LONDON  : The  manufacturers  understand. 

MR.  ROSENBERG:  To  some  extent  they  cannot  make  out  exactly  what  we 

want.  Our  trade  is  so  situated  that  you  can  never  tell  the  exact  value  of  a gar- 
ment— never.  It  always  depends  upon  the  men  he  employs  in  the  shop.  For 
instance,  Mr.  Bella  or  Mr.  Schwarcz,  employs  tailors  who  are  very  strongly  or- 
ganized amongst  themselves,  and  they  also — they  stand  very  high  in  the  union 
circles,  so  they  can  always  go  to  work  and  can  have  a garment  which  is  actually 
paid  by  another  manufacturer  a block  or  somewhere,  or  on  Fifth  Avenue — they 
will  go  to  work  and  demand  three  times  as  much  as  the  actual  garment  made  by 
another  man;  isn’t  that  so?  (Laughter.) 

Now,  this  clause  is  simply  for  the  protection  of  the  manufacturer. 

MR.  COHEN : Of  Beller  & Schwarcz? 

MR.  ROSENBERG:  Yes. 

MR.  COHEN  : Where  do  the  other  firms  come  in  ? 

MR.  ROSENBERG:  There  are  other  fellows  also.  Furthermore,  I wish  to 
say  in  the  beginning  of  the  season  we  get  together,  a committee  of  us,  with  repre- 
sentatives of  the  manufacturers,  and  I had  the  experience  of  adjusting  prices  with 
Mr.  Schwarcz  many  years  ago.  They  made  up  their  mind  that  this  garment  must 
be  paid  for,  a certain  garment  $5  or  $6  or  $10.  There  was  no  question  how  long 
the  garment  takes.  Do  you  know  why  ? Because  Mr.  Schwarcz’s  men  were  tail- 
ors who  thought  that  nobody  can  replace  them,  consequently  they  take  advantage. 
They  knew  that  Mr.  Schwarcz  or  Mr.  Jonasson  needs  exactly  those  tailors. 

MR.  COHEN : Did  you  ever  work  for  Schwarcz? 


86 


MR.  ROSENBERG : No,  I did  not  work  for  him,  but  I made  prices  with  him 

for  many  years.  Isn’t  that  so,  Mr.  Schwarcz? 

MR.  SCHWARCZ:  Yes. 

MR.  ROSENBERG:  It  is  the  same  in  every  factory.  It  depends  on  what 

kind  of  people  the  manufacturer  employs.  If  the  manufacturer  employs  strong 
union  men 

MR.  COHEN : May  I ask  a question? 

MR.  ROSENBERG:  Yes. 

MR.  COEIEN : You  say,  if  I understand  you  correctly,  that  it  depends  upon 

the  manufacturer.  Now,  some  of  the  manufacturers,  as  you  have  very  well  put 
it,  pay  tlieir  men  the  highest  rates  of  wages.  To  some  of  our  manufacturers  these 
prices  are  acceptable,  as  a matter  of  course. 

MR.  ROSENBERG:  I know  that. 

MR.  COHEN : Because  they  never  have  had  anything  lower  than  these  fig- 

ures. 

MR.  ROSENBERG:  Yes. 

MR.  COHEN:  Now,  when  you  come  to  the  piecework,  your  people  on  your 

side  have  said  that  the  reason  you  asked  for  75  cents  an  hour  as  a minimum 
throughout  the  industry  is  because  the  piece  worker  looses  money  by  reason  of 
the  poor  arrangement  of  his  work.  I mean,  the  unsystematic  arrangement;  he 
is  delayed  in  getting  out  his  work.  Well,  now,  upon  our  side,  Mr.  Rosenberg, 
we  believe  in  the  good  factories  that  does  not  exist ; in  the  well  organized  busi- 
nesses that  does  not  exist.  The  piece  worker  can  be  directed  by  the  foreman  in 
the  same  economic  fashion  that  the  week  worker  is.  Now,  isn’t  it  a little  un- 
reasonable to  fix  a minimum  so  high  as  this  for  piece  work?  Doesn’t  it  occur  to 
you  that  you  are  more  likely  to  get  justice  by  the  adjustment  between  shop  com- 
mittees and  the  manufacturers  on  these  piece  workers  each  season  than  you  are 
by  fixing  a flat  rate?  I am  merely  asking  the  question.  I haven’t  any  opinion 
of  my  own. 

MR.  ROSENBERG:  I will  try  to  explain  you.  It  is  absolutely  the  custom 

of  adjusting  prices  with  the  employees  from  each  shop.  As  far  as  the  union  goes, 
we  interfere  very  little  in  the  adjustment  of  prices,  because  even  if  I should  be 
a first  class  operator  or  a tailor,  I cannot  tell  exactly  how  much  a particular  gar- 
ment is  worth  unless  I should  make  this  garment  myself.  The  idea  of  75  cents 
per  hour  is  not  exactly — ^we  want  75  cents  per  hour,  but  this  should  be  the  basis 
on  which  we  should  guide  ourselves. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Let  me  ask  you  this,  to  put  it  in  another  way,  Mr.  Rosen- 
berg: Wouldn’t  it  be  a fairer  arrangement,  without  regard  to  what  the  week’s 

wages  are,  that  if  men  work  by  the  piece  they  ought,  on  an  average,  to  receive  as 
much  as  if  they  were  working  by  the  week?  Isn’t  that  a standard  which  would  be 
more  nearly  just  than  the  standard  of  75  cents  an  hour? 

MR.  ROSENBERG:  I will  explain  you,  counsellor.  It  will  come  out  this 

way,  anyhow.  They  will  not  earn  more  than  four  dollars  a day  anyhow,  but  this 
is  merely  drafted  to  have  a basis  on  which  to  be  guided.  Now,  for  instance,  the 
manufacturers  understand  it  well  that  we  adjust  prices  in  the  beginning  of  the 
season  for  some  certain  numbers — 50  or  100  or  200  numbers.  Two  weeks  after 
the  adjustment  of  prices  the  designer  makes  half  a dozen  new  samples,  not  identi- 
cal with  those  that  have  been  adjusted  prior  in  the  season.  I am  a good  union 
man  and  a strong  union  man,  and  I know  the  union  will  back  me  up  in  all  my 
demands.  I will  get  together  with  all  my  other  fellow  union  men,  and  I will  say, 
regardless  of  what  demand  we  have  made  at  the  time  of  the  settlement,  “The  boss 
is  busy  now,  and  we  will  get  him  by  the  neck  and  we  will  demand  five  dollars  for  a 
garment  that  is  actually  worth  only  two  dollars,’’  because  we  know  the  union  will 

87 


back  us  up.  The  manufacturer,  on  the  other  side,  feels  that  the  season  is  starting 
to  slow  up.  He  has  got  a new  garment  on  which  to  adjust  prices.  He  will  go  to 
work  and  see  that  he  will  not  pay  more  than  $1.50  for  a garment  which  is  worth 
three  or  four  dollars,  because  he  is  on  the  other  side,  in  position  to  take  advantage 
of  the  tailor,  so  for  the  protection  of  the  manufacturer,  as  well  as  for  the  protection 
of  our  own  men,  we  should  go  to  work  and  adjust  prices  in  this  manner.  For 
instance,  a new  garment  has  been  made  by  the  designer.  Nobody  knows  the  value 
of  the  garment,  because  there  is  no  such  thing  as  fixing  a real  price  on  cloaks — 
absolutely  not.  It  depends  upon  how  the  garment  is  turned  out.  In  one  shop  a 
certain  garment  maybe  is  worth — or  they  pay  only  fifty  cents  for  operating — 
while  in  the  next  shop  the  garment  may  be  worth  two  dollars.  It  depends  ac- 
cording to  the  workmanship.  In  one  place  the  operator  may  sew  them  together 
that  they  should  look  like  a regular  rag,  while  in  the  next  shop,  where  the  manu- 
facturer needs  high-class  goods,  his  foreman  will  not  accept  a garment  which  is 
inferior  made,  so  the  consequence  is  in  a high-class  shop  it  takes  the  operator  twice 
as  much  time  in  turning  this  garment.  What  we  want  first  is  this ; that  is,  to 
abolish  competition ; each  manufacturer,  no  matter  what  class  of  goods  he  turns 
out,  he  should  know  exactly  that  an  operator  has  to  earn  between  four  and  six  dol- 
lars a day.  If  the  garments  are  of  a cheap  quality  the  operator  will  turn  out,  let 
us  say,  ten  a day;  consequently  he  will  have  to  pay  him  sixty  cents  per  garment 
for  making  it.  In  another  shop,  where  the  operator  cannot  turn  out  more  tnan 
four  garments  a day,  the  same  agreement  should  be  paid  a dollar  and  a half,  and 
that  will  equalize  the  conditions.  We  are  here,  as  we  have  said  yesterday,  to 
abolish  unfair  competition,  and  the  moment  there  is  no  fixed  standard  how  much 
a man  should  earn  in  a day,  and  the  moment  there  is  no  system  how  to  be  guided, 
we  will  have  the  same  identical  story.  In  shops,  as  I have  said  before — in  shops 
where  men  are  strongly  organized  among  themselves — diey  will  get  an  advantage 
over  the  manufacturer,  and  I guess  the  manufacturer  will  have  to  pay  enormous 
prices  in  the  shops  where  the  non-union  men  are  working,  but  the  men  to  some 
extent  who  are  not  so  strongly  organized,  they  will  go  to  work  and  fix  a price  for 
same  identical  garment  at  a dollar  less,  and  where  will  the  union  manufacturer 
come  in?  That  is  our  contention. 

MR.  LONDON : I want  to  ask  one  question. 

THE  CHAIRMAN ; I believe  Mr.  Schlessinger  wanted  to  be  heard.  I would 
like  to  have  you  state  what  you  understand  the  question  is  that  I am  asking. 

MR.  SCHLESSINGER:  According  to  your  opinion 

THE  CHAIRMAN : What  do  you  understand  the  question  is  that  I want  to 

have  answered? 

MR.  SCFILESSINGER : The  question  that  you  asked  me  is  this.  Why  is  it 
that  the  wages  of  the  cutter  is  54  cents  an  hour,  and  the  wages  of  the  piece- 
worker is  75  cents  an  hour. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : No,  it  is  not.  That  is  not  the  whole  thing.  The  other 

question  is  this 

MR.  SCHLESSINGER:  Is  this  one  of  the  questions? 

THE  CHAIRMAN  : Yes ; that  is  one  part  of  it. 

MR.  SCHLESSINGER:  Let  me  first  answer  this. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : No ; I want  you  to  answer  the  two,  because  when  you 

are  answering  you  want  to  have  the  two  in  your  mind.  The  other  is  this : Your 

piece  rate  would,  at  eight  hours  a day,  make  $36.00  a week  for  every  person,  no 
matter  what  the  grade  of  work  and  the  skill  is.  Now,  you  do  not  pay  every  person 
the  same  when  they  are  working  by  the  week.  Why  should  you  pay  every  person 
the  same  when  they  are — the  same  class  of  workers  the  same  when  they  are  work- 
ing by  the  hour? 


88 


MR.  SCHLESSINGER : I will  first  answer  the  first  question,  Why  is  it  that 

the  scale  for  a cutter  is  54  cents  an  hour  and  the  scale  for  a piece  worker  we  will 
put  down  as  high  as  75  cents  an  hour? 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Yes. 

MR.  SCHLESSINGER:  I want  you  gentlemen  to  understand  that  every 

working  man  loses  time,  no  matter  what  class  of  work  he  is  doing,  and  no  matter 
how  many  hours  a day  he  is  working.  He  does  not  work  the  whole  day  steady, 
so  to  say.  He  must  lose  time,  as  I will  prove  it  to  you. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : We  will  assume  that. 

MR.  SCHLESSINGER:  Then,  if  you  will  assume  that,  I am  willing  to  show 
you  that  any  week  worker  is  not  working  more  than  six  hours  a day,  actual  work. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : That  is  your  explanation? 

MR.  SCHLESSINGER:  No;  I am  not  through  yet.  A man  that  is  willing 

to  work,  a man  that  is  really  sincere,  cannot  put  in  any  more  than  six  hours  a day 
of  work  in  an  eight-hour  day,  if  he  wants  to.  He  cannot  put  in  any  more  work. 
Half  an  hour  a day  is  being  lost  by  every  person.  We  can  make  up  our  minds 
that  we  must  work  from  eight  o’clock  in  the  morning  to  five  o’clock  in  the  even- 
ing, say,  with  half  an  hour  for  lunch,  but  we  know  that  half  an  hour  will  be  lost 
in  eight  or  nine  hours’  time.  Another  hour  and  a half  of  time  is  being  lost  by 
things  that  have  to  be  found  out,  how  they  are  to  be  made.  For  instance,  the 
manufacturer  gets  a new  style,  a new  garment  to  make.  When  the  manufacturer 
\vants  to  get  a new  garment,  it  takes  more  time  to  turn  it  out,  the  first  few  gar- 
ments, than  it  takes  to  turn  out  the  next  garment. 

THE  CHAIRMAN  : Everybody  admits  that. 

MR.  SCHLESSINGER:  Everybody  knows  that,  yes.  The  manufacturer 

brings  in  a new  garment  in  the  cutting  room.  The  cutter  has  to  waste  some  time 
for  it,  but  he  is  being  paid  for  the  time  that  he  wastes — for  the  time  that  is  bound 
to  be  lost  by  every  man.  by  everybody,  while  the  tailor  is  not  being  paid  for  the  time 
that  is  lost.  For  instance,  when  the  tailor  gets  in  a new  garment,  and  if  that  gar- 
ment takes  him  twice  or  three  times  as  much  as  it  would  take  him  if  he  were  used 
to  it — when  we  speak  of  75  cents  an  hour  for  a piece  worker  it  means  for  an  actual 
hour’s  work,  for  the  time  he  works.  That  means  less  than  50  cents  an  hour. 

THE  CHAIRMAN ; I think  I understand  your  view  on  that.  Now,  let  me 
have  your  view  on  the  second  question. 

MR.  SCHLESSINGER:  All  right.  As  far  as  the  skill  is  concerned,  men 
that  are  not  able — we  have  manufacturers  here 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Call  them  “A,”  “B”  and  “C.” 

MR.  SCHLESSINGER:  Say  that  “A”  is  making  a first-class  line  of  work 

and  “B”  is  making  a middle  line  of  work,  and  “C”  is  making  a common  line  of 
work,  so  just  as  well  as  we  have  three  different  grades  of  manufacturers  we  also 
have  three  different  grades  of  employees.  We  have  employees  under  “A”  and 
employees  classified  under  “B”  and  employees  classified  under  “C.”  One  of  those 
classified  under  “A.”  will  not  undertake — will  not  go  to  work  for  “B”  or  “C.”  One 
classified  under  “B”  or  “C”  will  not  go  to  work  for  “A.” 

THE  CHAIRMAN ; Yes. 

MR.  SCHLISSINGER : In  class  “A”  there  may  be  one  distinction;  one  man 

can  make  more  garments,  while  another  man  can  make  less  garments. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : You  have  not  understood  me,  apparently.  My  point  is 
this:  If  a cutter  works  by  the  week,  he  will  get  more  than  a skirt  finisher  gets? 

MR.  SCHLESSINGER : Yes. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : In  the  same  employment,  in  the  same  factory  “A.” 

MR.  SCHLESSINGER : Yes. 


89 


THE  CHAIRMAN-;  But  if  they  are  working  by  the  piece,  and  you  take  their 
measurements  by  the  hour,  you  are  proposing  that  they  all  shall  be  paid  at  the 
rate  of  75  cents  per  hour — at  a rate  which  would  be  equivalent  to  75  cents  per 
hour. 

MR.  COHEN:  May  1 ask  Mr.  Greenberger  a question?  May  I ask  you  a 

question?  You  are  a cutter,  are  you  not? 

MR.  GREENBERGER:  Yes.' 

MR.  COHEN  : Now,  do  you  know  of  any  reason  why  the  operators  should 

lose  time  when  the  cutters  do  not  lose  time? 

MR.  GREENBERGER:  Well,  as  far  as  I know,  I believe  that  the  operators 

are  compelled  to  lose  more  time  than  the  cutters. 

MR.  COHEN:  Why? 

MR.  GREENBERGER ; The  cutter,  in  the  morning  when  he  comes  in,  he  gets 
a ticket  from  the  foreman;  that  is,  generally  in  the  larger  housee,  in  the  majority 
of  houses — they  have  a man  there  to  hand  him  the  goods ; it  is  all  laid  out  for  him ; 
all  he  has  to  do  is  to  open  up  the  goods  and  separate  the  work,  whereas  the  opera- 
tors, as  has  been  explained,  have  first  to  go  to  the  foreman  and  sometimes  to  wait 
before  they  receive  the  bundle,  and  before  he  is  able  to  do  any  work  it  will  take 
him  some  time  to  arrange  everything  before  he  can  start  to  work.  Now,  my  idea 
is  this 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Just  answering  that  particular  question  or  Mr.  Cohen’s, 

isn’t  that  simply  a question  of  factory  management? 

MR.  COHEN : That  is  the  point.  May  I interrupt  you  just  a minute  while 

that  point  is  hot?  It  would  seem  to  us,  and  that  is  the  point  we  want  to  make 
so  that  we  can  be  corrected  if  we  are  in  error — it  seems  to  me  that  that  would  re- 
ward the  ill-regulated  factory  and  would  punish  the  well-regulated  factory. 

MR.  GREENBERGER:  The  cutters  and  pressers  who  are  under  the  schedule 
of  week  workers,  they  know  that  at  the  end  of  the  week  they  are  to  receive  a full 
salary,  irrespective  of  whether  they  do  a full  day’s  work.  They  know  the  salary 
is  waiting  for  them  at  the  end  of  the  week. 

MR.  COHEN : Even  if  they  do  no  work  at  all? 

MR.  GREENBERGER:  Yes,  even  if  they  do  no  work  at  all.  On  the  other 

hand,  piece  workers  in  figuring  an  average  of  75  cents  an  hour,  which  would  make 
them  earn  $6.75  a day,  were  they  employed  continuously,  but  in  view  of  the  fact 
that  they  have  to  lose  so  much  time,  even  if  they  work  in  the  shop  from  eight  to 
half-past  five,,  the  time  they  would  have  to  lose  would  only  bring  the  average 
around  35  or  40  cents  an  hour. 

MR.  COHEN : Wouldn't  the  remedy  for  that  be  an  average  earning  for  the 

week,  instead  of  a minimum  for  the  hour? 

MR.  LONDON ; Yes. 

MR.  GREENBERGER : In  answer  to  Mr.  Cohen’s  question,  figuring  by  the 

week  they  would  not  earn  $36.00  a week ; absolutely  not.  They  could  not  earn 
more  than  possibly  $25.00  or  $26.00  a week. 

MR.  COHEN : In  other  words,  Mr.  Greenberger,  you  thirk  that  this  75  cents 

an  hour  minimum  would  produce  an  average  earning  for  the  piece  worker  of  the 
figure  you  have  mentioned?  What  is  that  figure  that  you  mentioned? 

MR.  GREENBERGER:  Possibly  $24.00  or  $26.00.  It  would  positively 
reduce  that  average,  and  would  not  be  $36.00  a week,  because  the  people 
themselves  would  not  be  able  to  sit  down  continuously  and  earn  this  average 
of  75  cents  an  hour.  On  the  other  hand,  if  we  only  figure  at  an  average  of 
50  cents  an  hour,  they  would  naturally  earn  so  much  less  than  $26  00  a week. 

MR.  LONDON : V/hen  you  speak  of  an  average  of  $26.00,  you  do  not 
mean  an  average  of  $26.00  a week  during  the  year? 


90 


MR.  GREENBERGER:  No,  for  a week,  I said;  not  during  the  whole 

year. 

MR.  LENNON:  I want  to  see  if  we  cannot  get  the  Chairman  to  explain 

the  situation.  I may  misunderstand  the  Chairman,  and  I want  to  see  whether 
I do  or  not.  The  Chairman  calls  our  attention  to  the  fact  that  we  have  a 
list  here  of  a large  number  of  people  who  ought  to  be  employed,  and  that 
they  are  to  receive  different  wages.  On  the  other  hand,  that  when  we  talk 
about  pieceworkers  at  75  cents  an  hour,  that  we  have  treated  them  all  alike; 
why  don’t  we  make  a difference;  that  is  what  you  want? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes. 

MR.  LENNON:  I am  going  to  answer  it,  although  I am  not  a cloak 

maker.  The  cutters  are  under  that  head  of  $26.00  a week. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes,  and  we  will  assume  from  what  Mr.  Greenberger 
has  said  that  it  is  equivalent  to  $26.00  a week. 

MR.  LENNON:  Well,  without  regard  to  that.  The  people  for  whom  the 

75  cent  standard  has  been  fixed  are  the  same  class  of  people,  just  as  much 
as  all  cutters  are  the  same  class  of  people.  Tfiey  are  not  different  classes 
of  people;  they  are  operators  and  tailors,  and  with  the  same  general  skill 
and  with  the  same  general  ability,  and  therefore  in  asking  75  cents  an  hour, 
when  they  get  work- it  puts  them  on  the  same  equal  basis  with  the  cutters, 
who  receive  $26.00  a week. 

MR.  COHEN:  You  do  not  mean  to  insist,  Mr.  Lennon,  that  all  of  the 

pieceworkers  in  the  cloak  industry  are  as  competent  as  the  cutters;  that  all 
pieceworkers  are 

MR.  LENNON:  That  I have  not  said. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Then  you  do  not  answer  the  question? 

MR.  LENNON:  I think  I can  answer  it.  The  cutters  are  not  all  of  the 

same  class  of  skill. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes,  but  this  is  the  average  cutter,  as  I understand. 

MR.  LENNON:  Yes,  and  that  is  the  average  operator  and  the  average 

tailor. 

MR.  COHEN : Mr.  Jonasson  thinks  he  can  help  to  clear  up  your  mind  on 

this  thing. 

MR.  JONASSON:  I think  I know  exactly  what  the  Chairman  is  trying 

to  strive  at,  and  that  is  the  basis  of  the  calculation  of  75  cents  per  hour. 
They  take  that  for  the  average  man,  if  he  is  working  steadily — that  he  shall 
earn  75  cents  an  hour.  In  other  words,  if  he  makes  a garment  which  takes 
four  hours  to  make,  they  want  $3.00  for  that  garment.  If  it  takes  six  hours 
to  make,  $4.50.  The  garment  which  an  average  tailor  can  make  in  four 
hours  it  will  take  a poor  tailor  five  hours,  and  a better  tailor  only  three  hours. 
The  better  tailor  will  make  more  than  the  average  and  the  poor  tailor  less. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : My  question  has  not  been  answered  yet.  What 

you  say  there  is  a perfectly  clear  proposition,  and  it  has  to  do  with  the  cutters 
or  with  anyone  else;  I mean,  a man  of  greater  skill  will  do  more  than  a man 
of  less  skill,  and  that  is  the  general  rule  in  any  business  on  piecework;  but 
it  is  recognized  that  in  this  place  there  are  different  operations  which  require 
a different  degree  of  skill.  As  Mr.  Polakoff  said,  to  be  a good  cutter  you  must 
have  worked  five  or  six  years,  and  to  be  a responsible  baster  five  or  six 
weeks  would  be  sufficient.  Now,  on  his  mechanical  skill,  the  cutter  gets 
twice  as  much  at  least  as  this  skirt  baster,  but  on  the  theory  of  the  piecework 
scale  as  laid  down  here  the  skirt  baster  would  be  paid  just  as  much  as  the 
cutter.  It  is  the  different  operation  and  not  the  different  degree  of  skill  in 
the  same  class  of  trade. 


91 


MR.  JONASSON:  I think  Mr.  London  explained  that.  They  have  a 

clerical  error  in  the  agreement.  They  did  not  make  the  distinction  between 
tailors  and  finishers  and  operators  which  they  intended  to. 

MR.  LONDON:  It  is  the  tailors  that  we  intend  to  pay  75  cents  an  hour 

MR.  COHEN:  But  you  do  not  say  that  in  your  agreement.  It  says 
prices  for  piecework. 

MR.  LONDON:  I understand  that  the  Chairman  desired  to  get  an  an- 

swer to  the  ([uestion  that  he  has  asked.  I believe  the  only  person  who  tried 
to  give  it  to  him  is  Mr.  Schlessinger,  but  he  has  not  made  it  clear.  Mr. 
Schlessinger  divided  the  operators  into  various  classes,  and  the  manufac- 
turers into  various  classes,  and  he  said  it  worked  automatically  in  the  trade 
that  a skilful  operator  goes  to  the  most  reputable  firm;  he  would  not  dare 
to  dream — the  man  who  has  no  skill  of  the  highest  grade  would  not  dare  to 
go  into  a firm  that  does  the  best  work,  and  so  through  the  trade  it  works 
almost  automatically,  that  a first  class  operator  goes  to  a first  class  firm. 
The  second  class  operator  goes  to  a second  class  firm.  It  works  automat- 
ically, as  if  there  were  some  supervisory  power  beyond  it.  Tha:t  was  Mr. 
Schlessinger’s  explanation.  In  addition  to  that,  I desire  to  say  that  the 
word  “operator”  in  the  cloak  trade  means  a man  of  skill,  and  75  cents  an 
hour  for  actual  time  spent  in  the  making  of  a garment,  that  does  not  mean 
the  time  spent  in  the  factory. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I am  not  raising  the  question  whether  75  cents  is 

too  much  or  too  little,  but  I want  to  know  why  they  are  paid  the  same.  I 
assume  that  in  Mr.  Jonasson’s  establishment  that  he  has  not  only  cutters 
and  jacket  pressers  and  under  pressers,  but  he  has  also  some  skirt  finishers. 

MR.  LONDON:  Yes. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Now,  we  will  assume  that  Mr.  Jonasson’s  establish- 

ment is  a first  class  Class  A establishment. 

MR.  LONDON:  Yes. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Now,  if  he  employs  the  skirt  cutter  by  the  w'eek 

he  would  pay  that  skirt  cutter  $22.00,  and  if  he  employs  the  skirt  finisher  by 
the  week  he  would  pay  that  skirt  finisher  $12.00,  according  to  your  scale? 

MR.  LONDON:  Yes. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  is  nearly  one-half  of  what  the  other  earns? 

MR.  LONDON:  Yes. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Now,  if  he  happened  to  have  a desire  to  employ 

these  people  by  the  piece  instead  of  by  the  week,  you  would  make  the  rate 
the  same,  which,  I say,  would  either  be  an  injustice  apparently  to  the  skirt 
cutter,  or  it  would  be  an  injustice  to  Mr.  Jonasson  in  making  him  to  pay 
twice  as  much  for  the  skirt  finisher  as  if  he  had  been  doing  it  by  the  week. 

MR.  LONDON:  I think  it  will  help  this  situation  if  I will  read  the  balance 

of  that  paragraph  20,  which  I have  not  read  before.  It  is  a printer’s  mistake 
here,  I see.  It  reads  as  follows: 

“And  shall  the  prices  for  piecework  now  agreed  upon  fail  to  produce  that 
wage  to  the  average  pieceworker,  the  prices  shall  be  subject  to  revision  in 
order  to  produce  uniformity  in  the  trade.” 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  is,  if  it  fails,  but  in  this  case  that  I am  putting 
it  exceeds. 

MR.  LONDON:  All  right.  I understand  that  in  the  cloak  trade  what 
you  call  “skill”  means  ability  to  produce  a garment — speed  in  producing  gar- 
ments. A skillful  operator  means  a man  who  can  turn  out  a garment  in 
three  hours. 

MR.  COHEN:  No,  no.  There  is  some  art  even  in  the  cloak  trade. 


92 


MR.  LENNON:  I believe  I see  what  the  President  is  after,  or  I think 

so.  Now.  the  piigceworker  for  which  we  are  trying  to  fix  the  piece  scale  is 
not  to  be  employed  by  the  week  at  all.  It  is  not  subject  to  that  construction 
at  all.  He  is  not  to  be  an  employee  by  the  week  under  any  circumstances. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : If  that  is  so,  that  is  a different  proposition. 

MR.  LENNON : That  is  the  proposition.  We  are  fixing  the  scale  for  piece- 

workers who  are  not  permitted  to  work  by  the  week. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : If  that  is  so,  that  answers  it.  Is  that  the  answer  ? 

MR  .KLEINMAN : I want  to  say  that  a rate  of  75  cents  for  piece  workers 

does  not  apply  to  skirt  finishers,  because  the  majority  of  skirt  finishers  they  work 
by  the  week,  and  if  it  happens  that  a skirt  finisher  works  by  piece,  it  does  not 
mean  to  say  if  he  works  by  piece  that  he  shall  be  paid  at  the  rate  of  75  cents  an 
liour,  but  $12.00  a week. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : That  is  an  answer  to  it,  if  that  is  the  case. 

MR.  DYCHE:  The  average  pieceworker  is  the  highest  skilled  man  in  our 

trade,  for  before  a man  is  put  on  piecework  he  works  as  a helper,  mostly  by  the 
week,  and  before  a manufacturer  gives  a man  the  making  of  a whole  garment  he 
must  be  a skilled  man,  and  our  pieceworkers  are  the  highest  skilled  men  in  our 
industry. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Now,  Mr.  Cohen,  you  and  your  associates  accept  the 

statement  of  Mr.  Kleinman  as  being  the  proper  answer? 

MR.  COHEN : Yes.  Mr.  Chairman,  may  I suggest  this,  that  all  of  this  dif- 

ficulty has  been  created  solely  because  a lawyer  was  attempting  to  make  cloaks. 
In  other  words,  the  language  of  the  agreement  failed  to  convey  to  us  those  diffi- 
culties of  the  industry  which  both  the  worker  and  the  manufacturer  understood, 
and  it  is  a reflection  upon  our  profession,  sir. 

(Laughter.) 

MR.  COHEN : Now,  some  of  the  gentlemen  on  our  side  have  listened  with 

attention  to  the  presentation  of  views  by  the  gentlemen  on  the  other  side,  and  have 
some  points  of  view  which  they  desire  to  present. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I should  be  ver}/^  glad  indeed  to  hear  them. 

MR.  MEYER:  I should  like  to  have  the  pieceworker  defined.  I should  like 

to  ask  is  he  under  the  head  of  a pieceworker ; does  the  operator  come  under  that  ? 
May  the  presser  be  a pieceworker ; may  the  skirt  finisher  be  a pieceworker,  and 
so  forth.  We  should  like  to  have  a definite  definition  of  the  classes  under  which 
piecework  may  come,  in  order  to  discuss  the  problem  among  ourselves  to  greater 
advantage. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Let  me  ask,  Mr.  Meyer,  whether  you  can  answer  this 
question ; if  not,  possibly  one  of  the  other  delegates 

MR.  MEYER:  Yes. 

THE  CHAIRMAN ; What  class  of  persons  are  there  now  in  your  and  in 
other  factories,  if  you  are  able  to  state,  who  are  paid  by  the  piece? 

MR.  MEYER : I am  speaking  of  personal  experience ; and  I will  start  at  the 

bottom  of  the  list.  I will  say  in  our  establishment  a buttonhole  maker  is  not  paid 
by  the  piece.  The  skirt  finisher  is  paid,  where  they  exist  in  our  factory — there 
are  very  few 

THE  CHAIRMAN : They  are  paid  by  the  piece? 

MR.  MEYER:  Yes.  Skirt  basters,  I do  not  know.  Skirt  makers,  as  a rule, 
are  not  paid  by  the  week. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Who? 

MR.  MEYER : Skirt  makers,  as  a rule,  are  not  paid  by  the  week.  The  sample 

maker  is  a week  worker.  I have  no  knowledge  of  the  reefer  presser  or  the  reefer 
under  presser,  and  what  he  calls  the  piece  presser  means  the  man  who  takes  care 

93 


of  small  parts,  shaping  sleeves,  etc.  This  man  is  a week  worker.  The  skirt  under 
presser,  he  is  a week  worker.  The  skirt  presser  is  at  times,  and  maybe  one  or 
two  others.  The  under  presser  is  always  a week  worker.  The  jacket  presser 
may  or  may  not  be  one.  Cutters  and  skirt  cutters  in  good  concerns,  as  far  as  I 
know,  are  always  paid  by  the  week,  while  piecework  is  done  in  other  factories,  I 
understand. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Now,  Mr.  Lefcourt,  would  the  practice  be  the  same  in 

your  factory  substantially  as  it  is  in  Mr.  Meyer’s? 

MR.  LEFCOURT : Absolutely. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : And  that  would  be  practically  the  rule  in  all  of  the  fac- 
tories? 

MR.  SODOWSKY : At  times  we  engage  operators  by  the  week,  and  they 
also  give  them  helpers  by  the  week,  and  all  the  rest  of  them  are  just  the  way  they 
want  to  have  them. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  is,  by  the  piece? 

MR.  SODOWSKY:  No;  the  pressers  are  by  the  week,  and  the  cutters  by 

the  week. 

MR.  LONDON : In  your  place  all  are  paid  according  to  this  scale  here,  ap- 

proximately? 

MR.  SODOWSKY : Not  at  all  times.  At  times  we  have  it  done  by  the  week. 

MR.  SCHLESSINGER : The  prices  for  operators  and  tailors  working  by 
the  week  under  this  contract  shall  be,  etc. ; instead  of  having  pieceworkers,  and 
some  of  you  may  think  that  we  also  include  the  skirt  finishers  that  work  by  piece, 
and  others  may  think  they  are  also  including  the  skirt  makers  working  by  the 
week,  etc.  The  prices  for  piecework  for  operators  and  tailors  shall  be  on  the 
basis  of  75  cents  per  hour;  why  not  put  it  that  way? 

MR.  SODOWSKY:  The  question  that  has  arisen  that  it  has  been  75  cents 

per  hour,  is  because  they  have  not  gotten  any  work;  they  work  only  about  six 
hours  in  a day. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : That  is  the  point. 

MR.  SODOWSKY : If  I would  give  them  work  steady,  would  I be  allowed 

to  pay  less  than  75  cents? 

THE  CHAIRMAN : I understand  that  it  does  not  contemplate  payment  by 

the  hour,  but  that  the  rate  of  75  cents  suggested  simply  is  a standard  of  what  they 
are  expected  to  earn.  They  might  just  as  well,  and  I suppose,  a great  deal  better 
select  as  a standard  what  a man  would  earn  in  a week. 

MR.  COHEN : May  I say  that  the  discussion  on  both  sides  has  left  me  with 

the  feeling  that  after  conference  with  my  people  I can  make  a proposed  amend- 
ment which  will  carry  out  the  intention  of  both  parties.  There  may  be  a differ- 
ence in  the  figures,  but  at  all  events  I think  we  can  work  it  out  so  as  to  carry  out 
the  intent  of  both  parties. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Now,  at  the  beginning  this  morning  Mr.  Cohen,  you  sug- 

gested that  we  should  finish  the  question  of  wages  and  sanitary  conditions,  and 
then  you  would  be  prepared  to  present  all  the  matters 

MR.  COHEN:  Yes. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Is  there  anything  on  the  subject  of  sanitary  conditions 
which  ought  to  be  referred  to  before  we  adjourn? 

MR.  LONDON : One  word  only,  and  that  will  take  one  minute.  Of  course 

there  can  be  no  discussion  on  that.  Sanitary  conditions  are  necessary  to  the 
trade,  but  there  is  one  little  thing  that  I want  to  specifically  say,  that  sanitary 
conditions  are  violated  in  almost  all  of  the  factories.  When  we  drew  up  this 
agreement,  we  had  a meeting  of  the  representatives  of  the  various  locals,  and  the 
buttonhole  makers  asked  me  to  insert  the  condition  in  the  contract  that  no  button- 


94 


hole  machines  should  be  placed  in  close  proximity  to  the  lavatory  in  the  factory. 
The  buttonhole  maker  in  many  factories  seems  to  be  the  worst  treated  employee, 
and  his  machine  is  almost  always  placed  in  close  proximity — (Laughter) — I did 
not  want  to  have  that  in  the  contract,  because  1 was  going  to  mail  it  to  the  trade, 
and  I did  not  want  it  to  go  out  to  the  world  that  such  a thing  existed  in  the  cloak 
trade,  but  I do  ask  that  no  machine  shall  be  placed  within  a distance  of  lo  feet 
fromi  the  lavatory,  and  that  the  lavatory  shall  be  kept  in  proper  condition. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Mr.  Lefcourt  desires  to  say  something. 

MR.  LEFCOURT : I would  like  to  know  from  Mr.  London  whether  that  is 

the  only  complaint  that  comes  under  sanitary  conditions? 

MR.  LONDON : No,  that  is  a specific  complaint.  In  the  trade  conditions  are 

horrible  in  many  factories. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Well,  we  will  not  hear  them  all  now,  but  we  will  wait 

until  after  lunch. 

MR.  COHEN : May  I say  this,  that  in  the  published  discussion  of  this  strike 

emphasis  seems  to  have  been  laid  upon  the  unsanitary  conditions  in  the  industry, 
and  the  better  class  of  manufacturers  were  very  sensitive  about  that,  because  of 
the  fact  that  they  had  been  making  earnest  efforts  to  create  sanitary  conditions 
and  had  met  considerable  difficulties  on  the  part  of  their  employees.  Now,  un- 
doubtedly in  some  of  the  shops  of  the  cloak  manufacturers  unsanitary  conditions 
exist,  and  we  have  learned  since  these  contracts  have  been  signed  up  that  con- 
tracts have  been  signed  with  some  manufacturers  who,  according  to  our  standards, 
have  unsanitary  shops,  and  we  were  rather  astonished  when  the  statement  of 
grievances  came  to  us  that  the  sanitary  conditions  were  eliminated,  as  a grievance. 
In  the  statement  of  grievances  there  was  nothing  said  about  sanitary  conditions. 
I was  very  glad,  therefore,  when  Mr.  London,  in  making  up  the  topic,  included 
that  for  discussion  here.  Now,  we  are  very  much  concerned  about  this  question, 
because  we  had  some  pride  in  our  industry,  and  we  know  that  it  is  exceedingly 
difficult  to  observe  sanitary  conditions.  I am  frank  to  confess  that  I do  not  see 
that  it  will  make  very  much  progress  here  to  go  into  the  specific  details  of  un- 
sanitary conditions,  and  I will  suggest  to  my  learned  brother  that  he  take  under 
advisement  with  his  people  the  proposition,  that  both  parties  establish  as  the  re- 
sult of  this  conference  a board  of  sanitary  supervision,  on  which  there  shall  be 
people  representing  the  public  who  shall  endeavor  to  establish  a standard  to  which 
factories  in  this  industry  shall  conform,  and  when  that  board  of  sanitary  control 
makes  its  recommendations,  we  will  legislate  for  our  members  on  our  side,  so  that 
no  worker  will  work  where  these  conditions  do  not  exist,  and  no  honorable  cloak 
manufacturer  will  remain  a member  of  our  Association  if  he  does  not  observe 
these  conditions.  I ask  that  you  take  that  under  advisement  and  give  us  your 
answer  this  afternoon. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : We  understand  that  Mr.  London  will  take  that  under 

advisement.  The  time  for  the  adjournment  for  luncheon  has  arrived  and  we  will 
now  adjourn. 

Recess  taken  until  2 130  P.  M. 


95 


AFTERNOON  SESSION,  2:30  P.  M. 


MR.  DYCHE:  Owing  to  tlie  fact  that  one  of  our  members  on  this  Board 

cannot  attend,  we  have  substituted  Mr.  Abraham  Bizno. 

THE  CHAIRMAN ; Mr.  Schlessinger,  I believe  that  on  the  subject  of 
sanitation  you  wish  to  say  something  before  we  proceed. 

MR.  LENNON : Mr.  President,  I was  going  to  say  that  I did  not  under- 

stand tliat  we  would  open  that  subject  after  dinner,  but  we  desire  to  say  a 
few  words  upon  that  subject  before  taking  up  the  other  matters.  It  prob- 
ably is  true,  from  what  I can  discover,  after  being  in  this  conference  now 
going  on  the  second  day,  that  so  far  as  sanitation  in  particular  shops  is  con- 
cerned, that  the  gentlemen  who  are  here  have  shops  that  have  reached  prob- 
ably the  best  level,  and  the  best  standards  that  exist  in  the  trade,  but  those 
of  us  who  have  been  a long  time  in  the  labor  movement,  and  those  men  who 
have  been  humanitarians  and  have  taken  an  interest  in  the  uplift  of  the  human 
race,  have  discovered  that  the  existence  of  unsanitary  conditions,  whether  it 
be  the  lack  of  ventilation  or  the  lack  of  proper  toilets,  or  whether  it  be  from 
the  action  of  the  individual  employees  who  throw  filth  and  dirt  around  the 
floors,  or  whether  it  he  from  the  lack  of  the  owners  of  the  shops  to  see  that 
their  shops  are  properly  cleaned  out,  that  there  is  apparently  almost  an  abso- 
lute impossibility  to  lift  up  people  much  who  work  under  such  conditions. 
We  find  that  people  who  live  under  such  conditions  in  their  homes,  that  come 
iji  contact  with  excellent  conditions  in  the  shops,  that  they  learn,  and  learn 
rapidly,  to  he  men  and  women  of  the  right  kind,  but  wdiere  they  have  the 
conditions  in  the  shop  it  is  always  followed  nearly  by  the  same  conditions  in 
the  home,  and  therefore  there  is  no  influence  of  uplift  because  of  cleanliness. 
The  old  saying  that  cleanliness  is  akin  to  godliness  the  experience  of  the 
human  race  has  demonstrated  to  be  absolutely  correct.  There  are  some 
axims  that  are  considered  excellent  that  are  no  good  when  they  are  analyzed, 
but  that  one  through  the  centuries  has  proved  to  be  correct  in  principle,  and 
while  there  may  not  be  at  the  present  time,  and  possibly  is  not,  any  neces- 
sary changes  that  might  be  suggested  in  the  shops  that  are  represented  here 
this  afternoon,  there  is  a general  necessity  in  the  trade  for  decided  reforms 
upon  this  question  of  sanitary  shops,  and  not  only  is  the  ttade  interested, 
but  the  public  are  interested ; you  are  interested,  if  you  buy  anything  for 
your  wife  or  for  your  children,  if  you  have  them,  that  is  purchased  in  any  of 
these  shops — when  I say  “in  these  shops”  I do  not  mean  particular  shops;, 
but  in  the  trade ; if  the  conditions  are  not  there  favorable  for  the  produc- 
tion of  clean,  healthy  garments,  you  are  in  danger,  and  the  public  generally 
is  in  danger,  and  we  want  by  some  means  of  co-operation  along  perhaps — we 
want  to  establish  by  some  means  oif  co-operation  between  the  members  of 
the  Union  a condition  of  affairs  that  shall  tend  toward  respectability  and 
manhood  and  womanhood  in  the  industry,  and  I want  to  say  this  for  the 
trade  unions,  in  this  matter,  and  I have  no  hesitation  in  saying  it  anywhere 
and  under  any  circumstances  that  whatever  conditions  there  are  in  the 
world  to-day,  in  the  civilized  countries  of  the  world,  looking  toward  proper 
sanitary  inspection  and  proper  conditions  under  which  men  shall  work,  it  is 
due  absolutely  fundamentally  to  the  labor  movement  and  to  the  labor  organi- 
zations. They  were  the  pioneers  in  the  agitation,  and  they  carried  it  on 
when  no  one  else  was  to  be  found  to  help  them  carry  it  on,  but  fortunateU 
such  men  as  our  Chairman  and  a goodly  number  of  other  men  scattered  all 
over  our  country  and  over  the  world,  who  are  interested  in  human  uplift 
found  that  in  this  matter  we  are  standing  for  the  thing  which  is  unques- 
tionably right,  and  have  come  into  the  ranks  of  the  trade  union  movement  to 

96 


promote  this  reform,  which  is  so  essential  for  the  welfare  of  us  all.  While 
we  have  not  brought  this  matter  up  and  offered  any  discussion,  it  never 
caused  an}  complaint  that  I have  heard  of — I don’t  know  that  there  is  not — 
or  no  complaint,  so  far  as  I have  heard  of,  regarding  the  gentlemen’s  shops 
who  are  on  the  committee,  but  we  brought  it  up  because  we  believed  that 
there  should  be  made  a record  of  our  protest  against  the  continuance  of  the 
unsanitary  conditions  in  any  shop  where  cloaks  and  skirts  are  made,  in,  say. 
New  York  City  or  any  other  city. 

MR.  COHEN : Mr.  Lennon,  we  brought  it  up,  too.  It  was  not  in  your 

list  of  grievances,  and  I asked  that  it  be  added,  and  what  I asked  Mr.  Lon- 
don before  the  recess  was  that  you  should  take  up  the  practical  suggestions 
for  reform  that  I made,  if  it  be  practicable,  and  also  advise  us  of  any  sug- 
gestion that  you  might  have  to  make.  It  is  all  well  enough  for  us  to  sit  here 
and  express  hopes  and  ideals,  but  we  have  come  into  this  conference  with 
the  idea  of  not  only  settling  the  strike,  but,  as  I have  assured  you,  sir,  per- 
sonally, and  assured  Mr.  London,  of  doing  some  constructive  work  for  the 
industry,  and  we  are  not  going  to  leave  it,  if  we  can  help  it,  without  some 
record  of  accomplishment  on  that  score.  I concur  in  all  that  you  say,  except 
that  I do  not  think  you  quite  do  enough  credit  to  the  humanitarians  and  the 
sociologists  who  have  not  always  belonged  to  the  trade  unions.  Some  of  us 
have  practiced  law,  and  have  done  our  share  toward  meeting  the  conditions, 
and  we  do  not  have  any  unions  in  our  profession — ~ 

MR.  LONDON:  What  is  that?  You  have  the  greatest  union  in  the 

world. 

MR.  COHEN : At  all  events,  we  discipline  the  members  of  our  union  who 
do  not  observe  certain  standards. 

MR.  LENNON : The  reason  that  I did  not  deal  specifically  wdth  any 
suggestion  was  that  it  appeared  to  me  more  appropriate  to  do  that  under  the 
general  heading  of  how  to  make  effective  the  things  that  we  discussed. 

MR.  COHEN:  I did  not  mean  that  you  should  discuss  it  at  this  time. 

My  idea  was  that  I .should  communicate  that  suggestion  to  )^ou,  so  that  you 
might  take  it  under  advisement,  and  when  we  come  to  consider  it  you  might 
be  prepared  to  discuss  it. 

MR.  SCHLESSINGER : I want  to  say  that  the  thousands  and  tens  of 

thousands  of  people  employed  in  our  trade  are  working  under  the  most 
unsanitary  conditions,  which  will  be  proven  here  in  a few  minutes  by  one  of 
our  number,  Mr.  Bizno.  I just  want  to  offer  a remedy  for  it;  the  remedy 
that  manufacturers  should  not  give  out  any  work  to  any  individuals  that 
are  making  this  work  at  home. 

MR.  COHEN : We  have  agreed  upon  that. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : W e have  agreed  upon  that ; that  has  been  agreed 

upon. 

MR.  SCHLESSINGER:  This  was  understood  under  sub-contracting. 

MR.  COHEN : Oh,  no ; a special  topic  under  work  in  tenement  houses. 

MR.  SCHLESSINGER:  All  right.  It  is  not  that  we  are  against  tene- 
ment houses,  but  of  course  we  are  against  the  unsanitary  conditions  in  tene- 
ment houses. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : If  it  is  prohibited  for  all  purposes,  then  everybody 
could  have  his  own  reason. 

MR.  SCHLESSINGER:  That  is  all  right,  but  I want  to  have  it  for  my 
reason.  It  will  be  proven  that  thousands  and  tens  of  thousands  of  people 
in  our  trade  are  working  under  the  most  unsanitary  conditions. 

97 


MR.  LONDON : Do  yovi  want  to  make  a statement  about  the  conditions, 
as  you  discovered  them,  and  how  you  came  to  discover  them 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  In  New  York  City? 

MR.  LONDON : Yes. 

MR.  BIZNO:  When  I came  here  I did  not  consider  that  that  would  come 
up  for  consideration.  I take  it  that  both  the  manufacturers  and  the  men 
would  be  interested  to  have  sanitary  workshops,  and  to  have  the  men  work 
under  sanitary  conditions,  so  that  there  ought  to  be  reall_y  no  difference  of 
opinion,  and  I understand  and  am  told  that  there  is  no  difference  of  opinion. 
At  the  same  time  the  evil  is  as  old  as  the  trade. 

MR.  COHEN : May  I interrupt  the  gentleman  a moment.  We  are  con- 

strained by  certain  limitations  here;  both  sides  have  agreed  to  expedite  the 
decision.  Now,  unless  the  gentlemen  believe  that  it  will  facilitate  matters 
by  going  into  the  details  of  unsanitary  conditions,  it  would  seem  to  me  that 
if  the  suggestion  that  a normal  standard  be  made  we  could  leave  out  the 
discussion  before  such  a joint  committee  of  the  conditions,  because  if  we 
agree  upon  the  general  principle  we  ought  to  be  able  to  devise  a standard, 
and  it  would  seem  to  me  it  would  take  several  days  if  we  go‘  into  the  discus- 
sion of  what  the  standard  should  be. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Mr.  London,  what  do  you  say? 

MR.  LONDON : I would  ask  for  indulgence  to  permit  Mr.  Bizno  to  state 

generally  what  he  ha.s  discovered  in  the  course  of  his  investigations  in  the 
City  of  New  York.  I believe  it  will  take  not  longer  than  five  minutes. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : All  right.  You  will  proceed. 

MR.  BIZNO:  What  has  been  illustrated  by  Mr.  Schlessinger,  that  people 

from  the  large  shops  take  work  home  in  large  numbers  I found  to  be  time. 
I \yas  investigating  as  a special  agent  for  the  Federal  Government  the  sub- 
ject matter  of  the  clothing  trade,  particularly  at  that  time  with  reference  to 
the  employment  of  women  and  children,  but  my  business  carried  me  through 
most  of  the  factories  here  or  a very  large  number  of  them,  so  that  I do 
know  that  men  take  work  home  from  the  clothing  shops,  from  the  shop  to 
be  worked  at  home,  and  I found  the  homes  to  be  not  sanitary  places  where 
it  is  proper  to  make  such  garments.  We  found,  for  instance,  on  a 25-foot 
lot  by  70,  more  flats,  bedrooms,  I think,  about  7x9 ; ikitchens  9x12  or  14. 
In  a very  large  number  of  cases  the  bedroom  had  no  window  to  the  outside, 
not  even  to  an  airshaft.  In  some  cases  it  was  a small  airshaft.  Very  small 
liedrooms,  packed  with  bed  clothes  and  boarders,  and  clothes  and  skirts  and 
bedbugs  and  germs  of  all  kinds. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Well,  Mr.  Bizno,  it  is  your  opinion,  is  it  not,  that 
all  work  in  the  tenement  houses  should  be  prohibited? 

MR.  BIZNO:  Yes.  I beg  to  take  a few  minutes  to  show  why  it  should 

be  prohibited. 

MR.  LONDON : I want  to  have  you  state  what  you  found  in  the  shops? 

MR.  BIZNO:  We  will  get  to  that  in  a few  minutes. 

MR.  COHEN  : You  will  be  using  up  four  five  minutes  soon. 

MR.  BINZO:  I would  be  through  probably  by  this  time  if  I had  not  been 

interrupted.  So  that  we  also  found  contagious  diseases  in  these  homes,  car- 
ried, that  is,  along  with  the  clothes  and  skirts,  etc.,  and  so  that  it  was  our 
opinion  and  the  opinion  of  those  that  investigated  that  there  is  no  sanitary 
home  for  ihe  manufacture  of  clothing.  That  if  you  gave  work  out  to  be 
taken  home  you  are  taking  chances  of  giving  it  out  to  a place  where  there 
will  be  bedbugs' and  germs  and  contagious  diseases.  Now,  with  relation  to 
the  shops,  very  few  are  to  be  found  that  are  properly  sanitary.  It  is  true 

98 


that  the  people  have  a low  standard  themselves.  Even  though  you  built  the 
right  kind  of  a factory,  they  have  a very  low  standard,  but  it  is  also  true 
that  the  employers  are  not  taking  any  care  of  their  factories.  For  instance, 
we  found  a place,  a five-story  building,  where  I think  there  was  ten — twelve 
jshops  in  it.  The  factory  was  divided,  but  they  did  not  have  water  in  the 
place  for  about  very  near  four  weeks  during  the  winter ; the  thing  was  frozen 
up  and  the  filth  and  stink  in  the  place  was  beyond  human  endurance.  It  was 
said  that  the  landlord  was  to  fix  that,  and  so  the  complamt  was  made  against 
hin.. 

MR.  COHEN;  Where  was  the  Board  of  Health  all  this  time? 

MR.  BINZO:  Where  were  they?  I was  looking  into  it  and  making 
notes  of  it. 

MR.  COHEN:  Where  was  the  Board  of  Health? 

MR.  BINZO:  I don’t  know  that  they  were  notified.  I was  told  that  there 

was  some  kind  of  notification.  Everybody  was  careless  v/ith  relation  to  it. 

MR.  COHEN:  There  is  a Sanitary  Squad  that  goes  around. 

MR.  BIZNO:  Unless  the  trade  unions  and  the  manufacturers  co-operate 

for  that  purpose  to  maintain  decent  shops,  the  State  and  city  authorities  do  not 
seem  to  be  able  to  cope  with  this  enormous  problem,  and  I suggested  to  the  mem- 
bers of  the  union  that  they  make  this  a vital  point  in  their  demands. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Then  I am  right  in  understading,  Mr.  Bizno,  that  you 

heartily  endorse  Mr.  Cohen’s  recommendation  that  the  union  and  the  manufactur- 
ers’ association  co-operate  to  secure  the  enforcement  of  a proper  standard  of  sani- 
tation ? 

MR.  BIZNO:  Yes,  sir;  with  all  my  heart  and  soul. 

THE  CHAIRMAN  : Does  anybody  disagree  with  that  proposition  ? 

MR.  DYCHE:  I want  to  point  out  one  thing  that  has  been  left  out  in  this 

discussion.  I have  been  through  many  factories  in  the  City  of  New  York,  Fifth 
avenue  places,  some  of  the  finest  places  in  the  City  of  New  York,  that  I found  this, 
that  while  the  showrooms  are  palaces — -I  was  astounded ; it  was  all  right  about 
their  beauty;  I did  not  expect  showrooms  to  be  as  beautiful  as  they  were,  but  just 
behind  the  showrooms  there  was  a factory,  and  they  were  overcrowded.  If  the 
factory  inspector  would  be  there  when  the  people  were  not  in  he  would  find  a big, 
.spacious  place,  but  if  he  were  there  when  the  people  were  working  he  would  find 
machines  one  on  top  of  the  other.  While  the  Fifth  avenue  factories  are  big  and 
broad,  yet  the  overcrowding  of  the  people  inside  at  the  time  of  working  makes  it 
unsanitary  on  the  face  of  it.  It  is  a physical  impossibility  to  keep  them  very 

]\1R.  LONDON ; You  endorse  the  attitude  taken  by  the  other  members  of  the 
committee  ? 

MR.  DYCHE:  Yes;  but  I want  this  to  go  on  the  record,  that  some  of  the 

finest  places  in  the  City  of  New  York,  on  Fifth  avenue,  are  not 

MR.  COHEN : If  we  are  going  to  plead  to  an  indictment,  Mr.  Chairman,  we 

are  leady  to  plead  to  it  and  be  tried  and  hung,  if  we  are  guilty,  but  I do  not  think 
it  is  wise  to  make  general  charges  of  that  sort  if  we  are  both  going  to  try  to  im- 
prove conditions. 

MR.  LONDON : Let  us  go  to  the  next  point. 

MR.  BLOCH : I want  to  say,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  in  my  opinion  there  is  only 

one  solution,  and  that  is  for  the  committee  to  consider  when  they  act  on  this  thing, 
and  that  is  for  the  possible  arrangement  of  factory  inspectors,  who  will  volunteer 
their  services. 

MR.  COHEN : We  have  more  than  that.  May  I say  this,  Mr.  Chairman 

99 


MR.  LOR  DON : Pardon  me.  The  statement  ju.st  made  by  a member  of  the 

committee  about  the  appointment  of  sanitary  inspectors,  I would  like  to  state  that 
that  is  not  the  opinion  of  the  committee. 

MR.  BLOCH : I did  not  say  it  was.  That  is  my  opinion. 

MR.  COHEN : We  realize  that  the  suggestion  that  I made  requires  a great 

deal  of  efficient  work  to  carry  it  into  effect.  We  are  prepared,  on  our  part,  I may 
say  that  if  the  suggestion  is  adopted,  to  establish  a corps  of  inspectors,  paid  inspec- 
tors. If  your  organization  cannot  afford  to  pay  the  whole  expense,  we  will  bear 
the  larger  burden  of  it.  We  are  perfectly  willing  that  you  shall  bear  half  of  the 
expense,  if  you  can  do  it  out  of  your  organization  funds,  but  we  want  this  general 
board  of  control  to  be  so  effective — to  have  reliable  people,  people  whom  your  com- 
mittee selects,  whose  business  it  will  be  to  visit,  not  only  the  shops  of  our  own 
members,  but  as  far  as  possible  the  shops  of  non-members  of  our  association,  and 
let  their  reports  be  the  reports  on  which  the  General  Board  of  Sanitary  Supervis- 
ion will  act.  That  is  going  to  require  efficient  management ; going  to  require 
efficient  skill ; going  to  require  good  inspection,  and  we  expect  to  get  out  of  it,  by 
way  of  return,  the  knowledge  on  our  part  no  loose  criticism  can  hereafter  be  made, 
but  it  will  have  to  be  definite,  and  in  addition  to  that,  we  will  be  able  to  make  practi- 
cal tlie  pride  that  we  have  in  our  industry  at  the  present  time.  Now,  we  do  not 
pretend  to  be  white-robed  angels  on  our  side;  we  do  not  pretend  that  every  man 
m our  association  has  reached  the  highest  stage  of  human  development,  but  we  are 
going  to  do  our  level  best  to  raise  him  to  that  standard  if  we  can.  We  are  going 
to  do  our  level  best  to  make  the  standard  clear,  and  we  are  going  to  do  our  best  to 
make  it  enforcible,  and  we  want  you  to  feel  that  all  of  your  people  are  not  white- 
robed  angels ; to  see  that  you  have  your  fair  share  of  the  job,  and  you  must  be 
willing  to  undertake  it  with  us.  We  will  join  hands  together,  and  we  will  get  out 
of  this  strike,  and  as  a result  of  it,  I think,  Mr.  Chairman,  we  may  get  something 
that  will  lift  the  entire  standard  of  civilization  in  our  city. 

MR.  COHEN : Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen,  we  have  considered  very  care- 

fully all  of  the  matters  presented  thus  far  with  the  various  topics,  and  we  desire 
to  say  we  have  re 

MR.  LONDON ; We  will  proceed  to  the  next  point. 

MR.  COHEN  : Now,  Mr.  Chairman 

MR.  LONDON : The  report  of  the  Manufacturers’  Association. 

MR.  COHEN : I am  not  able  to  report  on  the  two  last  propositions.  I can 

take  those  up,  if  I may  be  permitted,  and  retire  with  my  people  for  half  or  three- 
quarters  of  an  hour,  and  we  will  come  back  then  and  report. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Very  well ; you  can  do  that,  Mr.  Cohen,  and  it  will  be 

agreeable  to  the  committee. 

(A  second  recess  was  taken  for  thirty  minutes.) 


100 


AFTER  THE  RECESS. 


THE  CHAIRMAN  : Mr.  Cohen,  are  you  ready  to  proceed? 

MR.  COHEN : Yes,  sir;  I am  ready  to  report. 

THE  CHAIRMAN  : Gentlemen,  you  will  give  your  attention. 

MR.  COHEN  : Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  we  have  considered  very  care- 

fully all  of  the  matters  presented  thus  far,  with  the  various  topics,  and  we  desire 
to  say  that  we  have  received  a good  deal  of  light  and  some  learning  from  these 
deliberations. 

We  are  prepared  to  recommend  to  the  members  of  our  association  the  follow- 
ing : 

That,  so  far  as  practicable,  and  within  a reasonable  period,  electric  power  be 
installed  for  the  operation  of  machines,  and  that  no  charge  for  power  be  hereafter 
made  to  employees. 

We  are  prepared  to  recommend  to  our  members  that  no  charge  be  made  against 
employees  for  materials,  except,  of  course,  when  caused  by  the  negligence  or  dis- 
honesty of  the  employee. 

We  are  not  prepared  to  recommend  the  abolition  of  the  deposit  system  for  shut- 
tles, bobbins,  silks  and  parts  of  machinery. 

We  are  prepared  to  recommend  the  establishment  of  a uniform  deposit,  say,  of 
one  dollar,  with  uniform  deposit  receipts,  and  are  prepared  to  adopt  rules  and 
regulations  in  our  association  for  enforcing  the  prompt  return  of  all  deposits  to 
employees  entitled  to  the  same,  and  in  such  cases  where  at  the  present  time  the  de- 
posits are  of  a larger  amount  than  one  dollar,  we  are  prepared  to  recommend  to  our 
meinbers  that  they  return  the  larger  amount. 

In  the  cases  where  the  employee  is  not  in  sufficient  funds  to  make  the  deposit, 
and  is  deserving,  the  deposit  shall  be  postponed  until  after  the  first  pay  day. 

We  accept  in  good  faith  the  assurance  of  the  union  representatives  that  they  will 
join  in  the  establishment  of  rules  and  regulations  by  which  to  discipline  any  mem- 
ber who  shall  be  shown  to  have  been  guilty  of  theft  of  materials,  and  we  shall 
agree  not  to  employ  any  one  so  disciplined  by  the  union. 

We  are  prepared  ta  recommend  that  no  work  be  given  to  employees  to  take 
home  at  night.  W believe,  however,  that  rigorous  disciplining  of  workers  by  us  in 
our  factories,  and  by  the  union  in  its  organization  will  be  necessary  to  make  this 
regulation  effective. 

In  view  of  the  existing  provisions  in  the  union  constitution,  we  will  in  future 
make  rio  time  contracts  with  union  men.  So  far  as  union  men  are  concerned, 
therefore,  the  question  of  security  for  the  performance  of  contracts  becomes  purely 
theoretical. 

We  agree  to  make  no  time  contracts  with  any  of  our  non-union  shop  employees, 
excepting  foremen,  designers  and  pattern  graders. 

We  are  prepared  to  recommend  that  if  the  union  will  co-operate,  all  existing 
contracts  with  union  men  shall  be  cancelled  and  securities  returned. 

We  know  of  no  discrimination  against  union  men  in  our  ranks,  and  no  black- 
listing, but  we  are  prepared  to  discipline  rigorously  any  member  of  our  association 
who  hereafter  shall  be  proven  guilty  of  violating  the  pledge  already  given. 

We  are  prepared  to  recommend  the  adoption  of  the  ten  legal  holidays  suggested. 
We  do  not  see  how  shops  operating  on  Sunday  for  employees  observing  Saturday, 
and  operating  on  Saturday  for  employees  observing  Sunday,  can  be  closed  entirely 
on  either  day.  Is  that  clear? 

MR.  LONDON:  Yes. 

MR.  COHEN : We  are  prepared  to  adopt  rules  and  regulations  for  the  regu- 

lar weekly  payment  of  wages,  and  to  recommend  the  payment  of  wages  in  cash. 

101 


1 hese  regulations  must,  however,  be  worked  out  with  due  regard  to  our  bookkeep- 
ing difficulties. 

We  concede  that  no  man  should  be  deprived  of  pay  for  unfinished  piecework  by 
reason  of  the  failure  of  the  employer  to  furnish  necessary  material,  and  we  con- 
cede that  each  pieceworker  should  be  paid  as  soon  as  his  work  is  inspected  and 
apj)roved. 

We  do  not  concede,  however,  that  the  employers  in  our  association  have  been 
guilty  of  unreasonable  practices  in  this  respect,  but  if  any  exist  we  will  do  all  in 
our  power  to  reform  these  conditions. 

We  are  prepared  to  recommend  that  all  sub-contracting  in  inside  factories  be 
abolished.  We  assume  that  if  our  members  do  abolish  this  system,  union  members 
will  insist  on  its  abolition  in  non-union  shops. 

We  are  prepared  to  recommend  the  adoption  of  the  following  hours  of  labor : 

A working  week  shall  consist  of  53  hours  in  six  working  days. 

The  following  shall  be  the  regular  hours  of  labor ; On  the  first  five  working 
days  of  the  week,  from  8.00  A.  M.  to  12.00  noon;  from  i.oo  P.  M.  to  6.00  P.  M. 
Saturday,  from  8.00  A.  M.  to  12.00  M.,  and  from  i.oo  to  5.00  P.  M.,  except  dur- 
ing May,  June,  July  and  August,  Saturday  half  holidays  to  begin  at  12.00  o’clock. 

No  overtime  work  shall  he  permitted  between  the  15th  day  of  November  and 
the  15th  day  of  January,  or  during  the  months  of  June  and  July,  except  on  sam- 
ples. 

No  overtime  work  shall  be  permitted  on  Saturdays,  except  to  workers  not  work- 
ing on  Saturdays,  nor  on  any  day  for  more  than  two  and  one-half  hours,  nor  be- 
fore 8.00  A.  M.  nor  after  8.30  P.  M. 

For  overtime  work  all  week  workers  shall  receive  double  the  usual  pay. 

We  are  prepared  to  recommend  the  following  wages  for  week  workers,  the  fol- 
lowing minimum  schedule  of  weekly  wages : 

Machine  cutters,  $25.00. 

Regular  cutters,  $25.00. 

Canvas  cutters,  $12.00. 

Skirt  cutters,  $20.00. 

Jacket  pressers,  $20.00. 

Under  pressers,  $16.00. 

Skirt  pressers,  $18.00. 

Skirt  under  pressers,  $14.00. 

Part  pressers,  $10.00. 

Reefer  pressers,  $16.00. 

Reefer  underpressers,  $12.00. 

Sample  makers,  $19.00. 

Sample  skirt  makers,  $19.00. 

Skirt  basters,  $12.00. 

Skirt  finishers,  $9.00. 

We  believe  that  buttonhole  makers  must  be  divided  into  two  classes,  on  account 
of  the  different  grades  of  work.  We  are  prepared  to  recommend  that  in  class 
“A”  they  shall  receive  a minimum  of  $1.20  per  100  buttonholes,  and  in  class  “B” 
a minimum  of  80  cents  per  100  buttonholes. 

These  week  prices  we  are  prepared  to  recommend,  on  condition  that  the  unions 
agree  to  establish  at  once  the  same  standards  throughout  the  industry.  We  agree 
that  prices  for  operators  and  tailors  and  piece  tailors,  when  working  by  piecework, 
shall  be  so  adjusted  that  they  shall  earn  a minimum  equivalent  to  the  minimum 
doing  the  same  work  by  week  work.  We  do  not  believe  it  is  practicable  to  fix  a 
standard  per  hour. 


102 


THE  CHAIRMAN : On  the  question  of  sanitation,  have  you  anything 

further  ? 

MR.  COHEN:  Upon  the  question  of  sanitation,  we  renew  our  recom- 

mendation for  a Joint  Board  of  Sanitary  Control,  consisting  of  representa- 
tives from  the  Manufacturers’  Association,  and  representatives  from  the  pub- 
lic, whose  function  it  shall  be  to  establish  standards  of  sanitary  conditions 
to  which  both  organisations  shall  commit  their  members  and  be  obligated 
to  maintain  to  the  best  of  their  ability  and  to  the  extent  of  their  power. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  covers,  I believe,  Mr.  Cohen,  all  of  the  points? 

MR.  COHEN:  I think  that  covers  everything  that  has  been  submitted 

to  us. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I would  like  to  ask  what  your  pleasure  is  in  regard 

to  the  consideration. 

MR.  LENNON:  I would  like  to  know,  first,  when  we  can  have  a copy 

of  the  document. 

MR.  LONDON:  No.  Can’t  you  supply  us  now  with  a copy  of  it? 

MR.  COHEN:  I have  only  my  own  notes  that  I have  made.  You  have 
a stenographer  here,  and  I suggest  that  one  or  the  other  of  the  stenographers 
can  go  and  write  it  out. 

MR.  LENNON:  We  will  retire  just  a minute  and  then  we  will  see. 

(The  Committee  of  the  Unions  retired  from  the  hearing  room.) 

MR.  LENNON:  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  the  committee  represent- 

ing the  unions  feels  that  it  is  absolutely  impossible  for  us  to  pass  upon  these 
propositions  without  having  them  before  us,  and  in  addition  to  that  we  feel 
that  there  is — that  the  matter  of  how  any  agreement  could  be  made  effective 
is  of  such  vast  importance  in  dealing  with  this  question  we  ought  to  discuss 
that  matter  this  afternoon,  and  after  having  discussed  that  we  will  have  on 
both  sides  the  ideas  expressed  as  to  how  an  agreement  might  be  made  effective 
and  operative,  and  then  we  will  be  prepared  to  not  only  judge  of  the  specific 
things  that  have  been  presented  but  also  to  judge  of  the  possibility  of  making 
them  effective,  and  it  is  the  suggestion  of  our  committee  that  that  other 
subject  be  now  taken  ':p  for  consideration. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Any  objection,  Mr.  Cohen? 

MR.  COHEN:  Why,  Mr.  Chairman,  it  seems  to  me— -I  think  that  the 

substantive  law  should  be  agreed  upon  before  we  proceed  to  the  administra- 
tive law.  I have  no  doubt  of  our  ability  to  work  out  the  effectiveness  of 
whatever  agreement  we  arrive  at,  and  I am  sure  that  if  you  will  be  good 
enough  to  lend  us  your  assistance  Mr.  London  and  I will  attempt  to  draft 
an  agreement  between  both  parties  to  the  conference  that  will  be  workable. 
I think  that  before  we  go  into  a discussion  of  the  method  of  enforcing  the 
agreement  we  ought  t o.  have  an  expression  of  opinion  upon  these  important 
matters  while  our  minds  are  fresh  upon  them. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I should  be  very  glad  to  hear  from  you  further,  Mr. 

Lennon. 

MR.  LENNON:  I would  say  that  the  matter  of  how  to  make  an  agree- 

ment operative  seems  to  us  to  be  so  interwoven  and  so  essential  to  the  agree- 
ment itself  that  we  ought  to  have  it  before  the  committee. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : I think — if  I may  be  allowed  to  express  my  opinion 

upon  it — I think  undoubtedly  before  anybody  is  bound  to  anything — it  is 
vei)  proper  that  we  should  consider  the  methods,  because  in  order  that  we 
may  make  up  our  minds,  every  one  of  us,  as  to  the  probability  of  a thing 
agreed  upon  being  actually  enforced,  b’ut  I think,  on  the  other  hand,  that 
it  is  very  important,  when  we  come  to  consider  the  methods  of  enforcement. 


103 


to  know  what  we  have  got  to  enforce,  and  for  that  reason  I should  think 
we  would  make  the  i/est  progress  by  seeing  whether  on  each  one  of  these 
eleven  topics  we  could  reach  an  agreement  as  to  what  it  is  that  we  want  to 
enforce,  and  if  we  do  reach  an  agreement  upon  them,  that  agreement  having 
been  only  tentative,  nothing  being  agreed  upon  until  everything  is  agreed 
upon,  but  provisionally  agreeing  upon  each  one  of  these,  so  far  as  we  can, 
and  then  proceed  to  the  last  and  most  important  question,  that  of  practically 
making  the  agreement  operative,  but  that  we  ought  to  proceed  to  take  up 
each  of  these  specific  remedies  and  discuss  what  it  is  that  we  can  agree  upon. 
Of  course,  I realize  that  we  cannot  do  that  now  without  having  them  before 
you. 

MR.  COHEN;  We  do  not  expect  that.  We  expect  that  an  adjournment 
will  be  taken,  and  I am  prepared  to  arrange  with  the  other  side  that  the  cour- 
tesies of  our  stenographic  staff  and  our  stenographer  may  be  available  to 
them  while  the  recess  is  going  on,  but  we  have  promised,  sir,  to  make  an 
earnest  effort  to  meet  the  complaints  of  our  employees,  and  I think  we  have 
to  some  extent  at  least  fulfilled  our  duty.  We  have  answered  practically 
every  question  that  has  been  put  to  us,  and  I think  we  are  entitled  to  know 
whether  our  answers  c<re  satisfactory,  or  if  they  are  not  satisfactory,  in  what 
respect  they  are  unsatisfactory.  I think  that  is  the  logical  and  orderly  way 
to  proceed.  I feel  confident  that  we  shall  find  a modus  operand!  between 
the  two  organizations  for  making  this  agreement  effective,  and  I think  we  are 
entitled  to  know,  with  all  due  respect,  whether  or  not  the  proposition  as 
responded  to  is  in  satisfactory  shape. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I presume,  Mr.  Cohen,  that  it  is  entirely  agreeable 

to  you,  as  I suggested,  that  whatever  assent  may  be  given  to  your  proposition 
as  made,  or  as  it  may  be  afterwards  modified  as  a result  of  further  discus- 
sion, is  to  be  deemed  a tentative  consent  only — provisional? 

MR.  COHEN:  Yes. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : And  to  become  effective  only  if  we  agree  upon  this 

last  and  most  important  question  of  the  method  of  enforcing  it? 

MR.  COHEN : Most  assuredly  so. 

MR.  LONDON;  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  London. 

MR.  LONDON;  Now,  I think  the  best  policy  is  the  honest  policy.  Let 
us  be  frank  in  this,  in  the  discussion  of  the  great  questions  which  are  of  so 
much  interest  to  us,  to  the  masses  and  to  the  public.  We  have  been  signing 
agreements  with  individual  employers  for  twelve  years.  In  some  cases  em- 
ployers of  substance,  reputable,  would  sign  the  agreement,  a straight  union 
agreement,  without  looking  at  it — would  sign  it.  Some  of  our  people  would 
take  it  that  the  employer  was  willing  to  concede  to  everything  contained  in 
the  agreement,  and  that  he  knew  it  by  heart.  Some  of  our  people  thought 
that  the  readiness  of  the  employer  to  sign  the  paper  without  examining  it 
and  without  looking  at  it,  was  due  to  the  fact  that  he  did  not  intend  to  observe 
anything  contained  in  the  agreement.  The  signing  of  agreements  became 
a farce.  Now.  everything  that  we  may  agree  upon  here — any  arrangement 
or  any  concessions  that  the  employers  may  make  to  us  or  that  we  may  make 
to  the  employers  as  a result  of  this  intelligent  conference  and  intelligent  dis- 
cus.sion  will  only  then  be  available  if  the  proper  methods  of  carrying  the 
forms  into  execution  wdl  have  been  adopted. 

THE  CHAIRMAN;  I think  everybody  agrees  to  that. 

MR.  COHEN:  I assent  to  that,  sir. 


104 


MR.  LONDON:  And  if  we  cannot  go  into  details  as  to  the  method  and 
manner  of  enforcement  of  minor  demands,  we  should  discuss  the  general 
plan  upon  which  we  intend  to  co-operate.  This  is  of  most  vital  importance. 
It  is,  as  a matter  of  fact,  an  experiment.  It  is  both  for  you  and  for  us  an 
experiment,  and  we  want  to  know  whether  there  is  a basis  for  co-operation ; 
whether  we  can  find  a way  of  co-operating.  We  do  not  ask  you  to  go  this 
afternoon  into  any  details,  but  we  do  want  to  know  what  are  the  general 
plans  of  co-operation  that  you  are  willing  to  adopt,  and  you  should  know — 
you  are  entitled  to  know — what  are  the  general  plans  that  we  are  willing  to 
recommend  and  which  we  consider  necessary.  In  view  of  this  I ask  you, 
Mr.  Chairman,  and  I ask  you  all  present  to  agree  to  the  discussion  of  a plan 
of  co-operation  and  a plan  of  action  right  now. 

MR.  COHEN : Mr.  Chairman,  throughout  this  conference  I have  assumed 

that  there  would  be  no  breach  of  faith  on  the  part  of  the  union,  and  I think 
it  is  but  fair  that  the  same  assumption  shall  be  made  with  reference  to  our 
association.  I endeavored  to  interrupt  Mr.  London  because  I desired  to 
resent  promptly  any  implication  in  his  remarks  that  any  of  the  members  of 
our  association  or  any  of  the  delegates  present  would  take  any  steps  to 
violate  the  results  of  this  conference  solemnly  entered  into.  We  are  pre- 
pared to  discuss  in  detail  any  suggestion  that  may  be  made  for  the  purpose 
of  making  this  effective,  but  before  we  proceed  to  the  manner  of  making  it 
effective  we  should  know  what  we  are  to  make  effective,  and  we  should  know 
what  we  have  agreed  upon  tentatively.  The  manner  of  procedure  thus  far 
has  been  agreeable  to  both  parties.  So  far  as  I know,  there  was  no  reason 
for  objecting  or  modifying  it.  We  could  have  withheld  our  answer  to  every 
one  of  the  grievances  offered  by  our  employees  for  consideration,  and  waited 
to  give  our  answer  until  we  knew  what  demands  might  be  made  upon  us  in 
the  way  of  method.  We  have  thought  that  the  frank  and  open  and  fair 
method  was  to  advise  our  employees  immediately  how  far  we  were  ready  to 
go,  and  to  do  it  as  promptly  as  possible,  and  I called  the  record  to  witness 
that  we  have  followed  that  procedure.  We  now  think  that  we  are  fairly 
entitled  to  answers  on  this  answer,  at  the  convenience  of  the  other  side,  and 
after  due  opportunity  for  consideration. 

THE  CHAIRMAN  : Mr.  Lennon. 

]\IR.  LENNON : I will  only  say  a word  more,  and  I want  to  say  that  while 

we  concede  that  the  conference  has  been  frank  and  straightforward,  that  repre- 
senting the  Union  we  believe  it  to  be  absolutely  essential  that  before  going  further 
— and  we  do  not  mean  that  we  are  not  going  to  consider  the  propositions  that  have 
been  given  to  us — but  before  going  further  with  them  and  entering  upon  either 
a refusal  or  acceptance  of  them,  that  we  should  know  as  to  whether  the  plans  that 
are  to  be  suggested  to  carry  them  into  effect  are  possible  on  the  part  of  the  Union 
or  otherwise.  If  they  are  impossible,  then  what  is  the  use  of  taking  the  time 
with  the  propositions  that  have  been  made?  If  they  are  possible,  then  what  harm 
is  done  by  having  an  understanding  of  them  at  this  time. 

THE  CHAIRMAN  : Mr.  Bizno 

MR.  BIZNO:  It  seems  that  most  of  us  feel  like  endorsing  what  Mr.  Lennon 

just  said.  Some  years  ago  I was  the  agent  for  the  Cloakmakers’  Union  here  in 
New  York.  I was  sent  to  a manufacturer  with  a contract  for  him  to  sign.  He 
looked  at  it  and  asked  me  who  I was.  I told  him,  and  showed  him  my  credentials, 
and  then  he  asked  me  how  much  wages  I was  getting,  and  I told  him,  and  he  kind 
of  .smiled,  and  he  said,  “Well,  suppose  I do  not  sign  it?”  I said,  “Well,  we  will 
discuss  it  in  the  Union  and  see  what  we  can  do  about  it.”  “Well,”  he  said,  “you 
may  have  a strike  on  account  of  it.”  I said,  “We  may  or  may  not;  I don’t  know.” 

105 


He  said,  “You  fellows  can  have  a strike.”  He  said,  “I  will  tell  you  what  I will 
do.  I will  sign  it.”  He  took  the  paper  and  began  to  prepare  to  sign  it,  and 
while  he  was  doing  it  he  was  laughing,  and  I asked  what  he  was  laughing  about, 
and  he  said,  “Well,  my  experience  is,  I have  been  signing  these  agreements  for 
some  time,  but  there  are  a liundred  ways  of  breaking  that  contract,  and  I don’t  care, 
as  long  as  you  fellows  hold  your  jobs  as  walking  delegates  and  get  your  wages, 
and  everything  will  be  smooth  and  nice.”  This  is  the  situation  that  the  men  feel, 
and  unless  some  clearance  is  made  here  as  to  what  will  be  done  with  contracts 
that  are  to  be  made  and  the  machinery  by  which  to  enforce  them,  there  is  no  reason 
to  conduct  this  conference.  It  may  be  either  real  or  a farce,  just  as  you  take  it. 
If  we  have  a means  by  which  we  can  enforce  it,  all  right. 

MR.  DYCHE:  A week  ago  last  Sunday  I had  the  pleasure  of  meeting  the 
President  of  your  Association  in  conference,  unexpectedly,  and  the  gentleman  who 
brought  us  together  pulled  out  a piece  of  paper,  a typewritten  copy  of  the  sub- 
jects to  be  suggested.  I volunteered  then  the  statement  to  the  President  of  your 
Association — I said,  to  me  it  is  a matter  of  the  least  importance  what  will  be  the 
rate — ^what  will  be  the  exact  condition  of — what  will  be  the  exact  rate  of  remu- 
neration, or  the  details  of  the  conditions;  what  I want  to  know,  first,  is  do  the 
Manufacturers’  Association  realize  that  the  only  way  to  lift  up  the  trade,  to  pro- 
tect them  from  unfair  competition  and  protect  our  people  from  those  grave  evils 
that  exist  in  our  trade,  is  by  strenuous  co-operation  on  the  part  of  the  Manufac- 
turers' Association  and  of  the  representatives  of  the  Union,  and  the  President  of 
your  Association  said  that  he  is  in  thorough  sympathy  with  the  ideas,  and  the 
plan  I suggested ; that  he  realized  that  in  order  to  lift  up  the  people  from  their 
present  deplorable  condition,  and  to  protect  the  legitimate  manufacturers  from 
the  small  fry,  who  are  cutting  into  their  trade,  the  object  of  the  Association  would 
have  to  be  to  do  all  it  can  to  make  the  Union  strong;  that  was  the  very  words — to 
make  the  Union  strong,  and  he  said  it  is  only  when  the  Union  will  be  strong,  he 
knows,  that  the  Union  will  then  be  in  a position  to  maintain  this  high  standard 
by  which  to  make  it  impossible  for  the  small  manufacturers  to  cut  out  the  large 
ones.  W e both  agreed  that  the  only  way  how  the  great  social  problem  which  the 
cloak  and  skirt  trade  presents  in  the  City  of  New  York  can  be  solved  to  some  ex- 
tent, and  how  those  great  evils  can  be  eradicated  is  by  strenuous  co-operation  on 
the  part  of  the  employer  to  make  the  Unions  as  strong  as  possible,  and  by  the 
Unions  being  strong,  they  will  be  in  a position  to  maintain  these  standards  and 
to  make  competition  fair  and  on  an  equal  basis;  and  on  the  strength  of  the  assur- 
ance of  your  President,  I stake  my  reputation— I stake  my  prestige  in  the  organi- 
zations, and  gave  an  order  that  no  settlement  should  be  made — no  people  will  come 
back  until  a settlement  has  been  effected.  I stake  my  reputation.  I have  been 
25  years  a leader  in  the  Union;  have  always  enjoyed  the  reputation  and  the  trust 
of  the  people  with  whom  I was  connected,  but  never  in  the  history  of  my  life  have 
I staked  my  reputation  so.  I practically  forced  upon  them  a truce  for  a day,  and 
at  four  o’clock  we  received  a letter  which  was  a bombshell.  It  appeared  that  all 
my  conversation  with  the  President  had  never  happened.  The  whole  contention 
— ridiculous  and  fallacious  contention  on  the  part  of  the  manufacturers,  that  the 
Unions  are  so  idiotic  that  we  want  to  destroy  their  business,  to  interfere  with  their 
business — we  should  be  a fit  subject  for  lunatics,  for  only  lunatics  would  want  to 
try  to  break  up  a business  from  which  they  were  making  their  living — such  a 
letter  I got  in  reply.  Now,  it  appears  to  me  this,  and  I still  maintain  that  unless 
there  will  be  strenuous  co-operation  on  the  part  of  the  Union  and  on  the  part  of 
the  Manufacturers’  Association — one  to  make  strong  the  other — all  of  these  agree- 
ments, all  of  these  details  cannot  hold ; they  cannot  be  carried  out.  I do  not  know 
how  we  can  do  it,  and  for  this  reason  I say  I think  I will  not  insist  upon  its  being 


106 


discussed  to-day  or  to-morrow,  but  it  appears  to  me  that  the  Manufacturers’  As- 
sociation, from  the  little  knowledge  1 have  had  of  them,  have  not  realized  that. 
They  have  been  taking  an  action  which  is  injurious  to  themselves,  that  is,  oppo- 
sition to  the  Union.  I may  be  mistaken,  but  that  is  my  conviction.  The  manu- 
facturers in  taking  a stand  against  the  Union  have  been  injuring  not  only  the 
men,  but  have  injured  themselves  too.  The  question  I would  like  to  know  is 
this,  how  far  the  Manufacturers’  Association  have  realized  that  by  helping  the 
Union  they  will  help  themselves? 

MR.  COHEN ; I am  prepared  to  answer. 


MR.  LENNON 
MR.  LONDON 
MR.  LENNON 
MR.  LONDON 


We  will  consider  the  propositions  to-night. 

You  mean  all? 

Yes,  we  will  consider  the  propositions  to-night. 

Is  Mr.  Cohen  prepared  to  make  any  statement? 

THE  CHAIRMAN : I think  that  settles  it. 

MR.  COHEN : Except  this.  Mr.  Chairman,  I think  Mr.  Dyche  is  entitled  to 

a fair  answer  to  the  question  that  he  has  just  put,  and  I want  to  make  it  accurately 
and  frankly.  At  the  time  that  Mr.  Dyche  had  his  conference  with  the  Chairman 
of  our  organization,  our  organization  was  not  prepared  to  deal  with  the  Union  as 
an  organized  body.  When  the  proposition  came  through  Mr.  Brandeis  to  deal 
with  you  as  an  organized  body,  I,  as  the  attorney  for  the  organization,  was  not 
prepared  to  tell  Mr.  Brandeis  that  we  were  prepared  to  deal  with  the  Union  as 
an  organized  body.  When  our  Executive  Committee  met  and  officially  passed 
upon  your  proposal,  the  question  of  dealing  with  your  organization  as  an  organ- 
ized body  and  working  with  you  in  co-operation  was,  for  the  first  time,  discussed 
and  deliberated  upon.  The  argument  against  it  was  not  the  argument  against 
trades  unionism.  The  argument  against  it  was  that  the  cloak  and  skirt  makers 
of  New  York  city  had  not  yet  shown  that  they  were  able  to  control  their  workers 
so  as  to  make  binding  negotiations  possible.  The  answer  to  that  argument  was 
that  we  could  not  see  that  the  cloak  and  skirt  makers  of  New  York  were  pre- 
pared to  bind  the  workers  in  their  industry,  but  that  the  value  of  co-operation 
for  both  parties  was  so  great  that  the  experiment  was  justified.  And  so  we  de- 
cided to  co-operate  with  your  organization,  not  with  optimism,  but  with  mixed 
feelings  as  to  whether  or  not  you  could  carry  out  seriously  the  obligations  that 
you  assumed,  and  with  equal  feeling  of  pessimism  as  to  whether  we  could  enforce 
our  obligations  upon  all  of  the  manufacturers.  We  have  come  to  this  Board  de- 
liberately and  after  reflection.  I have  taken  pains  to  give  you  over  and  over  again 
assurance — my  own  personal  assurance,  which  I had  hoped  would  be  worth  some- 
thing to  you  gentlemen  on  the  other  end  of  the  table,  that  we  would  endeavor,  de- 
liberately and  rationally  without  any  feeling,  work  out  a basis  of  co-operation  be- 
tween the  two  associations.  Whatever  may  have  happened  in  the  past  is  dead  and 
gone.  We  have  accepted  your  proposal,  without  qualification  or  limitation.  We 
have  come  here,  giving  your  our  assurance — we  have  pledged  our  honor  that 
whatever  agreement  we  enter  into  will  be  carried  out,  so  far  as  in  us  lies  the 
power,  and  you  have  given  your  pledge  that  it  will  be  carried  out.  So  say  to  me 
now  at  this  hour  that  it  is  more  important,  Mr.  Cohen,  to  know  whether  you  are 
going  to  keep  your  word,  than  to  know  what  you  are  willing  to  do,  implies  a lack 
of  confidence  in  me  persnally,  and  in  the  gentlemen  on  this  side  of  the  table. 

THE  CHAIRMAN ; I do  not  think  that  that  was  intended  by  Mr.  Dyche 
at  all. 

MR.  LONDON : No,  that  was  not  intended  at  all.  I desire  to  say 

THE  CHAIRMAN : I think  it  is  very  clear  that  Mr.  Dyche  had  no  such  in- 
tention, that  what  he  meant,  and  what  I think  that  everybody  else  will  agree  to, 

107 


was  that  it  is  absolutely  essential  that  we  should  work  out  the  methods  of  carry- 
ing out  what  we  agree  upon.  I understand  that  Mr.  Lennon  has  stated  to  the 
Chairman  of  his  committee  that  it  will  be  agreeable  to  his  committee  to  take  up 
the  various  propositions  submitted  by  Mr.  Cohen  at  to-morrow's  meeting,  and  Mr. 
Lennon  asks  that  we  adjourn  in  order  that  they  may  have  an  opportunity  of  hav- 
ing it  before  them  in  writing  and  duly  considering  it. 

Whereupon  the  conference  was  adjourned  until  Saturday  morning,  July  30th, 
1910,  at  10:00  o’clock. 


MINUTES  OF  SESSION  JULY  30,  1910. 

Room  5208,  Metropolitan  Life  Insurance  Company  Building, 

New  York  City,  July  30,  1910. 

Met  pursuant  to  adjournment  at  10.00  o’clock  A.  M. 

Present: 

The  cliainnan,  both  committees  and  counsel  as  before. 


MORNING  SESSION. 

I'HE  CHAIRMAN : Mr.  Lennon,  we  closed  the  conference  yesterday  with  the 

statement  that  you  desired  to  confer  with  the  members  of  your  committee  in  regard 
to  the  suggestions  which  Mr.  Cohen  had  presented,  and  if  you  are  prepared  I 
should  be  glad  to  have  you  proceed  now. 

MR.  LENNON : Mr.  Chairman,  the  suggestions  that  we  will  make  in  reply  to 

the  propositions  of  the  Manufacturers’  Association  are,  of  necessity,  subject  to  the 
final  adoption  of  our  organization  and  the  setting  out  of  some  plan  that  will  make 
their  execution  possible.  ^ 

The  committee  representing  the  Cloak  and  Skirt  Makers'  Union  have  carefully 
considered  the  propositions  by  the  committee  representing  the  Cloak  and  Skirt 
Manufacturers’  Association,  and  respectfully  return  the  following  answer : 

I.  That  sc  far  as  (these  are  offered  as  substitutes  in  a measure  for  what  you 
submitted)  that  so  far  as  practical  and  by  December  i,  1910,  electric  power  be  in- 
stalled tor  the  operation  of  the  machines,  and  that  no  charge  for  power  be  hereaf- 
ter demanded  of  employees,  and  that  a competent  machinist  have  charge  of  the 
machines. 

MR.  COHEN  : Well,  may  I 

i\IR.  LONDON : Please  do  not  interrupt. 

MR.  LENNON : I will  give  you  a copy  of  it. 

MR.  COHEN  ; Thank  you. 

MR.  LENNON  : 2.  No  charge  to  be  made  against  employees  for  material, 

except  when  caused — ^“for  loss  of  material'’  it  should  be — except  when  caused 
by  negligence  of  the  employee. 

THE  CHAIRMAN ; That  should  be  “for  material.’’  I guess  it  is  correct  that 
way. 


108 


MR.  LENNON  : ““Yes.  We  are  not  prepared  to  recommend  the  abolition  of 
the  deposit  system  for  shuttles,  bobbins,  silk  and  parts  of  machinery. 

The  establfshment  of  a uniform  deposit  of  one  dollar,  with  uniform  deposit  slips 
or  receipts,  and  adopt  rules  for  enforcing  the  prompt  return  of  all  deposits  to  em- 
ployees entitled  to  the  same ; and  in  cases  where  at  the  present  time  the  deposits  are 
larger  than  one  dollar,  we  are  prepared  to  recommend  to  our  members  that  they 
return  the  larger  amount.  This  is  a copy  of  your  proposition. 

MR.  COHEN  : Yes,  sir. 

MR.  LENNON ; In  cases  where  the  employee  has  not  sufficient  funds  to  make 
a deposit  the  same  shall  be  postponed  until  after  the  first  pay  day. 

3.  We  propose  that  this  proposition  be  changed  to  read,  that  no  work  be  given 
to  employees  to  make  at  their  homes. 

4.  We  offer  for  No.  4,  that  in  view  of  the  existing  provisions  of  the  union  con- 
stitution, in  future  there  shall  be  no  time  contracts  with  any  individual  shop  em- 
ployee, except  foremen  and  designers,  and  all  existing  contracts  with  shop  em- 
ployees, other  than  those  above  excepted,  shall  be  cancelled  and  the  securities  held 
shall  be  returned. 

5.  We  suggest  and  recommend  that  No.  5 read : “That  employees  shall  not 

be  required  to  work  during  the  ten  legal  holidays  sanctioned  by  the  laws  of  New 
York,  and  that  no  employee  be  permitted  to  work  more  than  six  days  in  each  week, 
and  that  those  employees  who  observe  Saturday  shall  be  permitted  to  work  Sunday 
in  lieu  thereof.” 

6.  That  a regular  weekly  pay  day  shall  be  established  and  payment  for  labor 
shall  be  in  cash,  and  that  each  piece  worker  shall  be  paid  for  all  work  delivered  to 
and  accepted  by  the  foreman. 

7.  We  recommend  that  this  proposition  should  read:  “That  all  sub-contract- 

ing in  the  inside  factories  of  the  firms  be  abolisheyl,  and  we  pledge  that  if  this  be 
done  by  the  employers,  that  our  union  will  insist  upon  its  abolition  in  all  union 
shops. 

8.  That  a working  week  shall  consist  of  forty-nine  hours,  to  be  performed  in 
six  working  days,  five  of  the  days  to  consist  of  nine  hours  each,  the  sixth  day  of 
four  hours,  thus  establishing  the  Saturday  half  holiday. 

I will  say  that  we  were  pressed  for  time  in  little  details,  and  as  to  the  hours  of 
going  to  work,  etc.,  that  can  be  easily  worked  out  subsequently.  ^ 

9.  Overtime  to  be  paid  for  at  double  the  usual  rate.  Overtime  shall  not  be 
permitted  during  June  or  July  or  from  November  15th  to  January  15th,  or  at  anv 
time  when  all  workmen  in  the  employ  of  the  firm  or  of  the  firm’s  outside  contrac- 
tors are  not  employed,  nor  before  8.00  A.  M.  or  after  8.30  P.  M.,  nor  for  more  than 
two  and  one-half  hours  in  any  one  day. 

10.  The  weekly  wage  scale  originally  presented  by  us,  we  are  unable  to  consent 
to  any  modification  thereof.  The  union  pledges  itself  to  use  its  very  best  efforts 
to  make  the  prices  agreed  upon  uniform  throughout  the  industry. 

Following  is  the  scale  of  wages  for  week  hands : 

Cutters,  not  less  than  $26.00  per  week. 

Skirt  cutters,  not  less  than  $22.00  per  week. 

Jacket  pres.sers,  not  less  than  $22.00  per  week. 

Under  pressers,  not  less  than  $18.00  per  week. 

Skirt  pressers,  not  less  than  .$20.00  per  week. 

Skirt  under  pressers,  not  less  than  $16  per  week. 

Piece  pressers,  not  less  than  $14.00  per  week. 

Reefer  pressers,  not  less  than  $18  per  week. 

Reefer  under  pressers,  not  less  than  $14  per  week. 

Sample  makers,  not  less  than  $24.00  per  week. 

109 


Skirt  makers,  not  less  than  $24.00  per  week. 

Skirt  basters,  not  less  than  $15.00  per  week. 

Skirt  finishers,  not  less  than  $12.00  per  week. 

Buttonhile  makers  not  less  than  $1.10  per  hundred  buttonholes. 

II.  Upon  the  question  of  sanitation  we  accept  the  recommendation  for  a joint 
board  of  sanitary  control,  consisting  of  an  equal  number  of  representatives  of  the 
Manufacturers’  Association  and  the  unions,  whose  function  it  shall  be  to  establish 
standards  of  sanitary  conditions  to  which  both  organizations  shall  commit  their 
members  and  be  obligated  to  maintain  to  the  best  of  their  ability  and  to  the  full 
extent  of  their  power. 

We  are  compelled  to  call  the  attention  of  the  conference  to  the  fact  that  we  were 
absolutely  limited  to  forty-eight  hours  for  the  closing  of  this  conference.  We 
have  previously  made  this  statement,  and  we  trust  that  the  conference  can  and 
will  be  governed  by  our  limitations  in  this  respect. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

MR.  COHEN : Mr.  Chairman,  I am  very  much  gratified  that  in  the  brief  time 

that  the  gentlemen  on  the  other  side  have  had  to  consider  our  recommendations 
that  they  have  been  able  to  come  to  such  definite  conclusions.  Mr.  Lennon,  for  the 
purpose  of  taking  up  definitely  the  differences  between  the  two  propositions,  I am 
going  to  ask  you,  so  that  1 may  understand  in  presenting  them  to  my  people,  just 
what  the  differences  are.  As  I read  the  difference  between  our  proposition  and 
yours  with  reference  to  electric  power,  you  fix  a definite  time,  the  ist  of  December, 
1910,  instead  of  leaving  it  within  a reasonable  period? 

MR.  LENNON:  Yes,  sir. 

MR.  COHEN  : Is  that  the  only  difference? 

MR.  LENNON : Well,  it  would  be  hard  for  me  to  remember  absolutely. 

MR.  COHEN : I won’t  commit  you  absolutely  to  it. 

MR.  LENNON : My  impression  is  that  that  is  the  difference. 

MR.  LONDON  : The  principal  object  is  not  to  disturb  the  business  of  the  em- 
ployers during  the  season— the  season  ending  on  the  26th  of  November,  or  about 
that ; some  time  in  November. 

MR.  COHEN : You  say  “as  far  as  practical”;  of  course,  you  mean  “practica- 

ble.” 

MR.  L^NON : Yes. 

MR.  COHEN : Then  I understand  that  the  difference  between  the  two  things 
is  that,  and  I will  take  that  under  advisement  with  my  people.  Now,  the  next 
proposition,  the  difference  seems  to  be  that  you  have  left  out  the ‘qualifying  clause 
of  charging  for  material  where  dishonesty  of  the  employee  occurs. 

MR.  LENNON : Well,  I will  say  we  do  not  like  to  proclaim  such  things  to  the 

public. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Why  not  suggest,  Mr.  Lennon,  “or  wrongful  act  of  em- 

ployees”? Every  one  of  us  do  wrongful  acts.  That  does  not  imply  dishonesty. 

MR.  COHEN : All  right,  sir.  I will  accept  that  modification. 

MR.  LONDON : It  is  well  to  have  a good  lawyer  for  chairman. 

MR.  COHEN : If  it  may  be  permissible  to  make  parenthetical  remarks  at  this 

time,  I think  Mr.  Brandeis  has  been  the  hope  and  spirit  of  this  conference. 

THE  CHAIRMAN  : I think  the  conference  itself  has  shown  just  the  right 

spirit  in  all  things. 

MR.  COHEN : The  next  proposition,  with  reference  to  the  deposit  system, 

seems  to  be  identical  withours. 

MR.  LENNON  : The  same  as  yours. 

MR.  COHEN : The  next  proposition,  as  to  taking  work  home  at  night,  means 

that  no  work  is  to  be  given  to  employees  to  make  at  their  home.  The  topic 

no 


we 


discussed  under  that  head  was  night  work.  Now,  the  new  proposition  is  that  no 
work  be  given  to  workers  to  take  home. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Is  there  any  objection  to  that? 

IMR.  COHEN : 1 am  not  prepared  to  answer.  I do  not  mean  to  say  there  is. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : I suppose  that  touches  on  night  work  and  tenement 

house  work  both. 

MR.  LONDON : Yes;  we  cover  the  whole  subject. 

MR.  COHEN : I do  not  think  there  will  be  very  serious  discussion  of  that. 

Naturally  I do  not  want  to  commit  myself  without  discussing  it  with  my  people. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Yes. 

MR.  COHEN : The  next  proposition  relates  to  time  contracts.  I note  that  you 

provide  that  all  existing  contracts  with — I notice  first  of  all  that  you  make  the  same 
exception  that  we  do,  except  that  you  leave  out  pattern  graders. 

MR.  LENNON : Yes. 

MR.  COHEN ; Why  do  you  leave  that  out,  may  I ask? 

MR.  LENNON : Because  they  come  under  the  class  of  cutters. 

MR.  COHEN : No ; that  is  not  so,  Mr.  Lennon,  as  a matter  of  fact. 

MR.  GREENBERGER:  Mr.  Chairman,  we  recognize  any  man  on  the  floor, 

outside  of  the  foreman,  as  a cutter,  wdiether  he  does  pattern  grading  or  anything 
else  in  the  line  of  cutting. 

MR.  COHEN  : That  would  be  the  same  as  to  say  that  any  one  who  worked  as 

a designer  was  an  operator. 

.THE  CHAIRMAN:  I should  be  glad  if  one  of  the  manufacturers,  and  also 

one  of  the  representatives  of  the  union,  would,  for  my  instruction,  state  exactly 
what  a pattern  grader  is. 

MR.  SCHWARCZ : He  is  a man  who  does  not  cut  any  materials  such  as 

woolens  or  silks  or  cotton,  and  is  simply  required  to  cut  paper  for  technical  pur- 
poses— to  cut  out  patterns. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : That  is,  he  cuts  the  papp"  which  the  cutter  subsequently 

uses  in  cutting  the  cloth? 

MR.  SCHWARCZ : Yes. 

MR.  COHEN : And  grading,  as  I understand,  involves  that  trained  knowledge 

which  enables  the  men  to  fix  the  sizes;  so  that  when  the  garment  is  cut  it  will  be 
adjustable  to  such  human  creatures  as  yourself  or  our  wives — I am  speaking  of 
both  industries. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Yes. 

MR.  COHEN:  And  requires  verj'  high  skill. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : That  is  only  the  cutting  of  paper;  not  of  cloth? 

MR.  COHEN:  Yes. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  me  ask  in  the  first  place,  Mr.  Bloch,  whether 

the  definition  given  by  Mr.  Schwarcz  is  correct,  as  you  understand  it? 

MR.  BLOCH:  It  is,  to  a certain  extent. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  To  what  extent  would  you  modify  it? 

MR.  BLOCH:  I would  modify  it  to  this  extent,  that  possibly  75  per  cent, 

of  the  concerns  manufacturing  cloaks  and  suits,  the  pattern  grader,  if  he  has 
no  patterns  to  grade,  cuts  cloth,  while  in  the  larger  houses  where  more  cut- 
ters are  employed  the  pattern  grader  is  usually  kept  busy  cutting  nothing 
but  patterns. 

MR.  COHEN ; We  can  meet  that  situation  easily  enough,  by  providing  a 
person  who  exclusively  cuts  patterns,  and  that  if  he  cuts  goods  he  falls  into 
the  other  class.  I think  that  is  merely  a matter  of  language. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Would  that  definition,  as  supplemented  by  Mr. 
Cohen’s  statement,  meet  the  difficulty  which  you  had  in  your  mind? 


Ill 


MR.  BLOCH:  No.  I tell  yoi]  why,  Mr.  Chairman;  it  would  leave  the 

pattern  grader  outside  of  the  organization,  which  he  is  a member  of  to-day. 

I HE  CHAIRMAN : Well,  would  he  be  left  out  any  miore  than  a designer 

would  be  left  out? 

MR.  BLOCH:  Well,  a designer  we  recognize  does  not  do  the  same  work 

that  an  operator  does. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : I am  asking  for  information  you  will  understand, 

because  this  is  an  entirely  new  point  to  me.  Does  a man  who  cuts  patterns 
in  the  first  instance,  which  would  seem  to  me,  judging  from  my  knowledge 
of  other  trades — for  instance,  of  the  shoe  trade — he  would  seem  to  me  to 
stand  on  an  entirely  different  basis? 

MR.  BLOCH:  To  illustrate  that  to  you,  the  designer  is  the  man  that 
cuts  the  first  pattern,  and  the  first  pattern  is  handed  to  the  pattern  grader; 
he  naturally  grades  the  sizes.  Now,  in  some  of  the  concerns,  especially 
where  they  make  a lot  of  special  measurement  garments,  the  pattern  grader 
is  the  one  that  will  grade  these  garments  instead  of  the  man  himself. 

THE  CH  AIRMAN : But  he  will  be  cutting  only  on  paper? 

MR.  BLOCH:  Only  on  paper,  but  just  as  I said,  in  possibly  75  per  cent, 

of  the  houses,  the  pattern  grader — the  man  who  grades  patterns,  also  grades 
cloth  and  cuts  cloth  at  times. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : That  is,  that  has  been  a practice,  but  it  could  be 
abolished? 

MR.  BLOCH:  It  would  put  the  concern  to  the  extra  expense  of  an  extra 

man  possibly. 

MR.  COHEN : I am  willing  to  go  this  far,  that  in  those  concerns  v/here 

the  man  performs  both  duties  he  may  be  treated  as  a cutter,  but  where  in 
those  concerns  he  is  treated  as  he  is  in  the  larger  concerns,  as  an  assistant 
designer,  who  applies  the  principle  of  the  designs  to  the,  patterns,  why,  in 
that  situation,  of  course,  we  could  not  agree  to  treat  him  as  anything  except 
the  highest  kind  of  a skilled  man,  and  we  have  to  make  contracts  with  such 
men.  Because  in  75  per  cent,  of  the  industry  these  men  perform  two  func- 
tions there  is  no  reason  why  in  25  per  cent,  of  the  industry  they  should  not 
be  excluded. 

THE  CHAIRMAN  : As  f understand  Mr.  Cohen,  he  would  say  that  if  any 
man  does  both  pattern  grading-  and  cutting  he  will  be  treated  as  a cutter,  and 
every  provision  which  relates  to  cutters  must  apply  to  him. 

hIR.  COHEN : That  is  merely  a suggestion. 

MR.  BLOCH:  That  suggestion  is  fair,  and  as  far  as  I am  personally  con- 

cerned I would  accept  that  suggestion,  but  it  would  create  contentions  at 
times. 

THE  CHAIP.MAN : I should  not  think  it  ought  to. 

MR.  COHEN : With  Mr.  London’s  ability  and  with  mine,  and  with  such 
contribution  as  the  Chairman  can  make,  I think  we  law}'ers  can  put  that  in 
such  shape  as  that  every  man  on  the  other  side  will  feel  that  there  cannot 
be  any  contention  on  that  subject. 

MR.  GREENBERGER:  I want  to  say  this,  that  in  the  first  place  almost 

every  pattern  grader  has  to  graduate  from  the  ranks  of  the  cutters.  I do  not 
believe  there  are  half  a dozen  interested  in  the  trade  where  a man,  a practical 
outsider,  came  into  the  shop  and  took  a position  as  pattern  grader.  He  has 
to  first  graduate  from  the  ranks,  possibly  learning  at  night  o(r  from  some 
school  the  trade  of  pattern  grading. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : As  far  as  I can  learn,  the  manufacturers  themselves 
usually  graduate  out  of  the  ranks  of  cutters  and  others  and  tailors. 


112 


MR.  GREENBfERGER : Mr.  Chairman,  the  situation  is  this.  If  we  were 

to  allow  the  pattern  graders  to  be  considered  above  the  class  of  cutters,  nat- 
urally we  would  lose  them  to  our  organization.  They  could  easily  work  one 
season  at  pattern  grading,  and  the  next  season  go  back  to  the  table  as  cloth 
cutters. 

MR.  COHEN : That  would  be  the  same  argument,  Mr.  Chairman,  that 

might  have  been  made  against  me  a good  many  years  ago  when  I earned  my 
living  as  a stenographer,  and  subsequently  began  the  practice  of  law,  to  say 
that  because  it  was  pc»ssible  T might  not  be  successful  as  a law}"er  and  might 
possibly  have  to  return  to  my  former  occupation  as  a stenographer,  that  I 
should  always  be  called  a stenographer. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Well,  suppose  we  take  that  up  later. 

MR.  COHEN ; There  is  one  other  point  as  to  that.  Mr.  Chairman,  this 
is  a question  I should  like  to  ask  )"Ou,  sir.  I drew  the  language  of  the  propo- 
sition submitted  by  the  gentlemen  on  this  side,  and  naturally  tolok  into 
account  certain  legal  limitations  that  we  were  under.  In  oltering  to  cancel 
all  existing  contracts,  we  assumed,  of  course,  that  we  could  not  do  that  with- 
out the  consent  of  both  parties  to  the  contract,  and  I assumed  that  if  we 
entered  into  such  an  arrangement  with  the  union  here  it  would  secure  for  us 
the  assent  of  all  union  members,  but,  of  course,  we  cannot  undertake  to  de- 
stroy all  of  the  contracts  that  we  have  existing,  and  if  we  have  contracts  with 
other  than  union  men  at  the  present  time,  we  would  open  ourselves  to  serious 
litigation  if  we  attempted  to  do  that.  I think,  therefore,  I may  assume  that 
this  proposition  may  be  modi.hed  in  such  legal  form  as  will  protect  us  against 
liability — against  those  whose  contracts  cannot  be  abolished  at  the  present 
time,  without  mutual  consent. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : I am  sure  that  Mr.  London,  as  an  experienced  law- 

yer, and  you,  can  agree  upon  a provision,  and  I am  also  sure  that  the  union 
would  not  want  anything  you  cannot  legally  do.  You  can  agree  upon  the 
form  together,  unquestionably. 

MR.  LONDON:  No.  5. 

MR.  COHEN : Now,  No.  5.  What  is  the  difference  there,  Mr.  Lennon,  or 

Mr.  London? 

MR.  LONDON : I have  not  prepared  this  for  the  meeting.  I will  have 

Mr.  Lennon  answer. 

MR.  COHEN : I say,  “we  are  prepared  to  recommend  the  adoption  of  the 

ten  legal  holidays  suggested.”  You  say,  “the  employees  shall  not  be  required 
to  work.”  That  is  a mere  change  in  language. 

MR.  LENNON:  That  is  all. 

MR.  COHEN : No.  6 seems  to  be  the  same  as  ours. 

MR.  LENNON : No.  It  has — your  provisions  required  that  work  be 

finished  before  the  pay  was  due  to  piece  workers,  and  we  provide  that  instead 
of  that,  that  piece  workers  shall  be  paid  for  all  work  delivered  to  and  accepted 
by  the  foreman.  You  provide  in  yours  that  work  shall  be  finished,  and  we 
provide  that. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : That  was,  Mr.  Lennon,  what  you  deemed  to  be  a 

possible  ambiguity  in  the  word  “finishing” ; that  is,  as  applied  to  the  whole 
garment,  instead  of  applying  it  to  a particular  work  that  a particular  man 
might  do  on  it?  Now,  I want  to  suggest,  if  it  meets  with  yojur  approval, 
gentlemen,  that  where  we  do  agree  upon  the  substance,  as  we  have  apparently 
in  most  of  these  matters,  and  a different  phraseology  is  used,  that  the  law- 
yers be  considered  as  the  legislators,  say,  a committee  on  third  reading,  to 
adopt  the  proper  expressions  to  carry  out  the  particular  thought,  although 

113 


there  may  be  something  better  than  either  the  one  or  the  other  can  suggest 
as  to  making  it  clear  what  we  mean. 

MR.  COHEN:  Is  that  satisfactory? 

MR.  LENNON : Yes. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Now,  the  next  provision — regular  pay  days. 

MR.  COHEN : To  that  provision  with  regard  to  the  delivery  and  accept- 

ance of  the  work,  I do  not  see  any  substantial  difference. 

I'HE  CHAIRMAN : I understand  there  is  no  difference.  It  is  simply  a 

question  of  phraseology,  and  I think  that  phraseology  will  afterwards  be 
agreed  upon  between  those  who  take  it  up  in  detail. 

MR.  COHEN : Now,  the  next  one.  No.  7;  that  is  the  same  as  ours,  I under- 

stand. 

MR.  LENNON : It  is  just  the  same,  except  a little  change  of  wording.  It 

is  the  same  thing,  in  substance. 

MR.  COHEN : The  same  thing  in  substance.  That  is  as  to  the  abolition 

of  subcontracting  in  inside  factories. 

MR.  MEYER:  Does  that  mean  one  weekly  pay  day? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  No,  I do  not  understand  that.  That  is  merely  that 

there  shall  be  a regular  weekly  pay  day,  but  there  may  be  a different  pay  day 
for  each  department. 

MR.  COHEN : I so  understand.  Now,  the  next  proposition  differs.  We 

proposed  53  hours  and  you  say  49.  There  is  a difference  of  four  hours  there. 
How  does  that  arise,  Mr.  Lennon,  the  difference  in  the  time  that  you  fix? 

THE  CHAIRM  AN : It  is  all  in  the  Saturday  afternoon,  is  it  not,  Mr. 

Lennon  ? 

MR.  LENNON : This  provides  for — I did  not  work  out  those  hours.  We 

were  pressed  for  time,  I will  tell  you  that,  but  we  provide  here  for  a working 
week  of  49  hours,  to  be  performed  in  six  working  days,  five  of  the  days  to  con- 
sist of  nine  hours  each,  and  the  sixth  day  to  consist  qf  four  hours;  that  makes 
49  hours.  That  gives  Saturday  half  holidays  the  whole  year  around. 

THE  CHAIRMAN  : Your  provision  was  for  Saturday  half  holidays  dur- 

ing what  ? 

MR.  COHEN : May,  June,  July  and  August. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Then  it  is  a question  of  Saturday  half  holiday  during 
the  eight  months  remaining? 

MR.  LENNON:  A question  of  the  number  of  hours  per  week. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : No,  the  number  of  hours  per  week  during  those  foui 

months  is  exactly  the  same,  and  it  is  different  only  in  these  other  eight  months, 
and  that  difference  is  by  reason  of  the  fact  that  it  is  a question  of  Saturday  half 
holiday. 

MR.  COHEN : I will  take  that  difference  up  with  my  people.  Now,  the  next 

matter  is  as  to  the  wages. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : No.  The  next  is  overtime.  Is  there  any  difference  in 

the  overtime,  Ylr.  Lennon? 

MR.  LENNON : Yes. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  is  that? 

MR.  LENON  : The  difference  that  has  been  inserted  by  us  is  that  overtime 

shall  not  be  permitted  unless  the  regular  employees  of  the  firm  all  have  worked ; 
in  other  words,  that  four  or  five  people  shall  not  be  permitted  to  work  overtime, 
and  a hundred  be  permitted  to  walk  the  streets  without  anything  to  do. 

MR.  COHEN : Well,  I think  the  language  here  is  unfortunate,  ]\Ir.  Chairman. 

MR.  LENNON : That  may  be. 


114 


MR.  COHEN : I am  willing  to  leave  that  to  the  committee  on  drafting  or 

third  reading. 

THE  CHAIRMAN  : That  is,  the  general  purpose  which  Mr.  Lennon  suggests, 

) ou  are  prepared  to 

MR.  COHEN : Well,  of  course,  we  must  understand,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  the 

man  who  can  best  determine  how  many  people  and  who  he  wants  for  overtime,  is 
the  man  who  is  running  the  factory.  That  is  part  of  his  job,  but  he  can  pledge 
himself  not  to  discriminate  in  making  his  decision ; but  his  decision  is  the  de- 
cision of  the  manufacturer. 

THE  CHAIRMAN  : That  is  true,  and  of  course  there  is  very  little  likelihood 

of  any  man  having  others  work  overtime  when  he  has  to  pay  double  for  it,  if  he 
can  get  work  done  at  the  single  rate. 

MR.  COHEN ; Certainly,  I do  not  suppose  any  one  will  contend  that  because 
we  must  employ  four  men  overtime  that  therefore  we  must  employ  fifty. 

THE  CHAIRMAN ; Certainly  not. 

MR.  MEYER : If  all  the  work  in  a given  factory  were  of  the  same  grade  or 

the  same  kind  or  the  same  quality,  of  course,  this  provision  would  be  an  easy  one 
to  fulfill ; but,  for  instance,  you  may  be  very  busy  in  your  cutting  department,  and 
you  may  be  very  anxious  to  keep  your  cutters  working  overtime  in  order  to  have 
something  to  do  for  your  tailors,  or  again  you  may  be  very  busy  in  a specific  de- 
partment where  nothing  but  hand  sewing  is  done,  while  the  machine  department — 
operating  and  finishing  departments  mav  have  nothing  to  do. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Yes. 

MR.  MEYER : So,  of  course,  there  are  so  many — of  course,  I am  speaking 

now  for  our  own  factory  and  others  like  our,  including  Mr.  Silverman,  in  order 
to  make  this  point  clear,  because  you  have  a conflict  there.  It  would  be  easy 
enough  to  say  that  no  four  cutters  shall  be  singled  out  unless  all  the  cutters  work ; 
that  would  be  easy. 

MR.  DYCHE;  That  is  exactly  what  we  mean. 

MR.  COHEN : That  is  exactly  what  you  mean  ? 

MR.  DYCHE;  Yes. 

MR.  COHEN : Then  let  us  have  it  that  way. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : I think  that  is  precisely  what  he  means,  that  you  only 
can  overwork  a given  class  of  people  if  there  is  no  further  supply  of  people  of 
that  particular  class ; I mean  a certain  class  of  cutters  or  finishers  or  whatever 
it  is.  Isn’t  that  it,  Mr.  Dyche? 


MR.  DYCHE : Yes. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : It  is  merely  a question  of  phraseology. 

MR.  DYCHE;  Certainly.  It  does  not  mean  that  if  the  cutters  are  busy  and 
there  is  not  work  enough  for  the  operators.  What  we  mean  is  that  when  there 
are  25  cutters,  there  should  not  be  ten  cutters  working  overtime,  while  fifteen  go 
about  idle.  The  same  thing  applies  to  every  other  department. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : And  it  also  applies,  if  there  are  certain  kinds  of  cutters 
that  can  do  one  thing  and  cannot  do  another  thing,  there  may  be  an  adequate  sup- 
ply of  cutters  to  do  what  you  need  to  have  done. 

MR.  MEYER;  Supposing  we  take  another  instance  which  happens  very  often. 
We  may  have  piled  up  a lot  of  cloth  work  in  our  cutting  room,  and  our  trimmers 
may  not  be  able  to  catch  up  with  it.  They  may  be  able  to  do  it  only  by  making 
the  cloth  cutters  stop  at  night,  and  let  the  trimming  cutters  work  ahead,  or  the 
pattern  cutters  work  ahead.  How  will  you  meet  that  situation? 

MR.  LENNON ; Let  me  ofifer  a suggestion.  What  we  want  to  do  is  to  pro^ 
tect  people  from  an  imposition  of  certain  men  having  a large  amount  of  overtime, 


115 


and  other  men  or  women  having  nothing  to  do,  and  I suggest  after  the  word 
“firm”  in  the  fourth  line,  that  there  be  inserted  “doing  the  same  class  of  work.” 

MR.  COHEN  : That  does  not  meet  the  last  point  raised  by  Mr.  Meyer. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : But  that  will  meet  the  first  point? 

MR.  COHEN : Yes.  Mr.  Chairman,  I understand  the  difficulty  to  be  this. 

Mr.  Lennon’s  proposition  is,  or  the  union  one  is,  that  a few  people  shall  not  be 
singled  out  and  get  more  overtime,  and  the  others  go  without.  That  seems  fair. 
On  the  other  hand,  our  difficulty  is  this,  that  because  there  are  25  men  in  our  cut- 
ting department  we  ought  not  to  be  obliged,  when  only  five  are  needed  for  a par- 
ticular evening,  to  have  all  25  work.  As  Mr.  Meyer  works  out,  another  depart- 
ment may  be  waiting  for  just  a few  hours  overtime  work  in  this  department.  Must 
we  then  in  this  department  pay,  if  five  men  are  needed,  five  times  what  is  neces- 
sary to  complete  that  particular  piece  of  work?  Now,  it  does  not  seem  to  me  that 
the  logical  method  of  improving  the  situation  is  such  an  uneconomical  one  as  that. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Mr.  Lennon  can  cut  that  short  quickly,  can  you  not, 

Mr.  Lennon? 

MR.  LENNON : To  explain  the  thing,  I want  to  cite  my  own  trade,  and  I 

know  the  men  here  are  after  the  same  principle,  although  I may  not  express  it 
their  way.  Our  rule  is  that  during  what  we  call  the  dull  season,  every  tailor 
working  for  a firm  shall  be — shall  have  such  a distribution  of  the  work  as  will 
enable  him  during  the  dull  season  to  make  an  equal  amount  of  money  with  all  the 
rest.  For  instance,  I am  a dress  coat  maker  and  work  for  Bell,  and  he  cuts  four 
dress  coats  one  after  another,  and  cuts  no  sack  coats ; he  will  give  me  the  dress 
coats,  but  when  the  dull  season  has  expired  he  must  have  made  that  good  by  gfiv- 
ing  the  sack  coat  makers  and  the  other  class  of  coat  makers  an  equal  amount  of 
work,  so  that  during  the  time  when  everybody  is  not  employed  they  will  be  en- 
abled to  make  the  same  amount  of  money. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : That,  of  course,  does  not  come  under  this  provision. 

MR.  LENNON : If  you  need  five  cutters  for  overtime  to-night,  you  do  not 
need  25 ; but  to-morrow  night  if  you  need  five  cutters,  do  not  put  the  same  five 
cutters  on ; put  on  another  five. 

MR.  MEYER:  That  is  easy. 

MR.  COHEN : That  is  fair  enough. 

MR.  BLOCH:  The  object  of  this  clause  was  simply  this,  as  I understand  it; 

it  was  in  the  event  that  certain  concerns  have  a certain  amount  of  employees  and 
have  a certain  amount  of  employees  employed,  that  no  overtime  shall  be  done  by 
that  branch  until  the  other  branch  who  work  for  these  concerns  are  engaged. 
A concern  may  have  50  operators  during  the  season,  and  in  the  month  of  August 
have  about  25  employed,  and  the  other  25  still  awaiting  an  opportunity  for  em- 
ployment. In  the  meantime,  we  claim  that  the  25  employed  shall  not  be  given 
overtime  until  the  regular  hands — the  other  25  are  back  in  their  employment,  and 
in  the  event  of  an  employer  desiring  overtime,  that  he  equalize  the  overtime  among 
all  the  employees  of  the  different  branches. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : As  far  as  is  practicable. 

MR.  BLOCH : As  far  as  practicable,  yes. 

MR.  LONDON : I think  that  point  is  covered. 

MR.  COHEN : T think  we  can  meet  that  situation. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : It  is  a question  of  phraseology. 

MR.  COHEN : It  is  a question  of  phraseology  and  also,  as  far  as  it  involves 

technical  knowledge  of  the  situation,  I have  a suggestion  that  I will  make  which 
has  occurred  to  me  while  we  were  talking.  First  of  all,  I want  to  find  out  just 
what  the  differences  are  between  us. 


116 


We  come  to  No.  lo.  That  relates  to  the  weekly  wage  schedule  and  presents 
again  the  weekly  wage  schedule  contained  in  the  proposed  agreement.  I will 
pass  that.  Now,  upon  the  sanitation  question,  I see  that  our  recommendation  is 
exactly  the  same.  Then,  Mr.  Chairman,  if  I may  be  permitted  to  rely  upon  my 
memory  of  these  last  few  moments,  with  the  exception  of  dif¥erences  in  phrase- 
ology—or,  first  of  all,  I want  to  say  this;  I do  not  see  in  your  statement  the  clause 
by  which  we  pledged  ourselves  against  not  discriminating  against  union  men 
and  against  blacklisting.  You  do  not  want  that  pledge  now? 

MR.  LONDON  ; Well 

THE  CHAIRMAN : I guess  that  is  understood ; that  stands  as  it  is. 

MR.  COHEN : That  stands  as  it  is. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : There  was  no  difference  on  that. 

MR.  COHEN  : All  right. 

MR.  LONDON : That  will  come  under  the  remedies. 

MR.  COHEN : I also  find  that  you  omitted  the  establishment  of  rules  and 
regulations  for  discipline  in  cases  of  theft  of  material. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Isn’t  that,  Mr.  Cohen,  a broader  question.  Of  course,  I 
suppose  you  all  would  want  a provision  to  discipline  members  for  violation  of 
any  one  of  the  provisions  agreed  upon.  You  simply  mention  it  in  that  instance, 
but  I think  it  should  be  general. 

MR.  COHEN : I accept  that.  That  should  come  under  the  method  of  enforc- 

ing. That  reduces  the  differences  to  differences  in  the  time  schedule  and  differ- 
ences in  the  wages  and  on  the  half  holiday  proposition. 

THE  CHAIRMAN;  Yes. 

MR.  COHEN : If  that  be  so,  I think  before  we  lawyers  tackle  the  problem, 

it  ought  to  be  handled  by  the  experts  on  both  sides,  and  I suggest  that  a sub- 
committee, consisting  of  four  of  the  employers  and  four  of  the  delegates  from  the 
union,  be  appointed  by  the  Chairman  to  go  into  executive  session,  and  thrash  out 
this  question  and  come  back  with  a report. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : I presume  that  the  counsel  of  the  parties  would,  ex- 
officio,  attend  that  committee? 

MR.  COHEN : I should  not  care  to  attend  myself,  because  I do  not  want  to 
be  the  back  of  a handball  court. 

MR.  LONDON : I suggest  that  a committee  of  three  would  be  sufficient. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Three? 

MR.  LONDON : Yes. 

THE  CHAIRMAN;  Would  that  meet  with  your  approval,  Mr.  Cohen? 

MR.  COHEN : I think  I can  get  Mr.  London’s  assent,  if  I may  talk  with  him 
priva'^ely  for  a moment. 

MR.  LONDON ; And  that  we  proceed  with  the  discussion  of  remedies  while 
the  sub-committee  works  that  out? 

THE  CHAIRMAN ; I should  be  glad  indeed  to  proceed  with  the  discussion 
of  remedies,  but  I should  dislike  to  have  any  of  the  committee  absent  at  the  time. 
I think  when  we  discuss  remedies  we  should  have  the  full  committees  present,  and 
if  it  is  important  that  we  should  proceed  with  the  remedies  now,  perhaps  we 
could  defer  that.  I think  we  are  so  near  together  on  all  these  propositions  that 
it  is  almost  impossible  that  you  should  not  agree. 

MR.  COHEN : Mr.  London  accepts  the  proposition  of  four  men  on  both  sides, 

both  sides. 

MR.  LONDON:  Yes. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Is  that  agreeable  to  all  of  you  gentlemen  here? 

A VOICE:  Yes. 


117 


THE  CHAIRMAN : Before  making  the  appointments  I should  like  to 

confer  with  counsel  fur  each  side,  and  to  get  their  suggestions  so  that  I 
may 

MR.  COHEN:  I am  ready,  sir. 

(The  Chairman  and  counsel  for  both  parties  retired  for  private 
conference.) 

(The  Chairman  and  counsel  returned  to  the  conference  room  and 
the  meeting  was  again  called  to  order.) 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Gentlemen,  I have,  as  requested — suggested — con- 

ferred with  the  counsel  of  each  party,  and  with  the  aid — and  with  their  aid 
I make  the  following  appointments  of  the  sub-committee  to  consider  the 
subject  of  hours  and  rates  of  wages: 

On  the  part  of  the  Union,  Messrs.  Rosenberg,  Dyche,  Polakoff  and  Klein- 
man. 

On  the  part  of  the  employers,  Messrs.  Meyer,  Sodowsky,  Silverman  and 
Soloman. 

I understand  it  to  be  the  opinion  of  counsel  that  a very  brief  conference 
would  probably  result  in  a settlement  of  these  questions,  and  I suggest  that 
those  committees  now  retire,  and,  with  a view  to  putting  our  time  to  the 
best  possible  use,  I venture  also  to  suggest  to  both  parties  that  instead  of 
having  the  usual  adjournment  for  lunch,  arrangements  be  made  so  that  a 
very  light  lunch  be  served  here — sandwiches  or  something  of  the  kind — so 
that  we  can  keep  in  practically  continuous  session  until  we  settle  this  matter. 

MR.  COHEN : That  is  agreeable  to  us. 

MR.  ROSENBERG:  As  far  as  our  side  is  concerned,  I hardly  believe 
that  we  can  waste  half  an  hour’s  time  longer  on  this  conference.  We  cannot 
stay  here  longer  than  one  o’clock.  After  one  o’clock  we  will  absolutely  not 
permit — that  is,  to  break  up  our  entire  business  on  account  of  conferring  for 
two  or  three  days  longer.  The  manufacturers  have  all  the  time;  let  them 
consider  the  price  question  amongst  themselves,  and  give  us  an  answer  by 
mail  or  by  messenger  or  any  other  way.  Our  men  are  busy  men  and  we 
cannot  afford  to  wait  here  longer.  That  is  our  instructions  from  our  organi- 
zation. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I think  we  are  all  busy  men,  including  the  chairman, 

and  it  seems  to  mie  that  this  sub-committee  that  has  been  appointed  should 
retire,  and  we  would  be  glad  to  have  a report  from  that  committee  as  soon 
as  possible. 

MR.  I.ONDON : It  was  the  understanding  of  counsel  on  both  sides  that 

the  conference  between  the  two  sub-committees  will  not  last  more  than  15 
minutes. 

MR.  ROSENBERG:  As  far  as  our  side  is  concerned,  it  need  not  last  a 
minute. 

(The  eight  gentlemen  designated  by  the  Chairman  to  compose  the 
sub-committees  retired  for  conference.) 

(The  sub-commiltees  later  returned  to  the  hearing  room,  and  the 
Chairman  again  called  the  meeting  to  order.) 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Gentlemen,  I understand  the  sub-committee  is  ready 

to  report.  They  certainly  have  been  very  expeditious  and  kept  within  their 
promise. 

MR.  MEYER:  I wish  to  report — and  I hope  I shall  be  corrected  if  there 

is  an  error  in  the  report — we  find  that  the  other  side  has  no  instructions  per- 
mitting them  to  recede  from,  their  demands.  In  view  of  that  fact,  the  em- 
ployers recommend  that  the  union  agree  to  leave  the  two  questions  put  to 


118 


the  committee  to  arbitration,  our  side  recommending  or  rather  urging  that 
the  presiding  officer  of  this  conference  act  as  Chairman  of  the — as  Arbitrator 
— from  our  side.  Now,  if  you  wish  to  correct  that  now,  I wish  you  would. 

MR.  LONDON:  What  was  the  last  recommendation,  that  the  Chairman 

should  act  as  arbitrator? 

AIR.  COHEN:  That  the  Chairman  of  this  conference  shall  act  as  arbi- 

trator. 

AIR.  LONDON:  I see. 

AIR.  ROSENBERG:  I believe  there  is  some  mistake  in  the  report  Mr. 

Aleyer  has  just  brought  up.  That  is,  we  simply  agreed  amongst  ourselves 
to  refer  to  a referendum  vote  of  our  members  whether  they  are  willing  to 
submit  the  question  of  wages  and  hours  to  an  arbitration  committee.  They 
may  decide  in  favor  of  it  or  against  it.  I don’t  know. 

AIR.  COHEN : Alay  I state,  for  the  satisfaction  of  Air.  Rosenberg,  that 

since  you  have  no  power  at  the  present  time,  we  understand  that  you  must 
go  back  and  get  power,  and  that  you  can  only  do  that  by  referring  back, 
and  our  suggestion  and  recommendation  is  that  the  matter  be  left  to  arbi- 
tration, and  our  suggestion  and  recommendation  is,  in  view  of  the  experience 
that  the  Chairman  has  had  both  in  this  and  many  other  matters,  that  he  be 
the  arbitrator.  We  make  that  as  a suggestion  for  you  to  carry  back  to  your 
people.  We  understand  that  you  cannot  be  committed  to  it  at  this  time. 

THE  CHAIRAIAN:  I am  very  much  obliged  for  the  confidence  shown  in 

the  Chairman,  but  I wish  that — and  I think  it  perhaps  important — that  the 
gentlemen  should  go  back  with  practically^  absolute  freedom  of  choice  as  to 
the  Chairman,  and  I will  ask,  if  it  meets  with  your  approval.  Air.  Cohen,  that 
you  now  put  before  the  committee  merely  the  question  of  choosing  an  arbi- 
trator, and  do  it  without  any  suggestion  as  to  who  that  arbitrator  shall  be. 
Then,  if  it  is  put  in  that  form  and  carried  back  in  that  form,  either  you 
together  or  each  of  you  can  choose  an  arbitrator,  and  the  two  choosing  a 
third,  can  work  out  the  details  as  to  the  individual 

MR.  COHEN : So  far  as  we  are  concerned,  we  know  that  no  better  choice 

than  yourself  could  be  made.  So  far  as  the  other  side  is  concerned,  it  is  left 
to  their  discretion  to  report  to  their  people  so  much  of  the  recommendation 
or  suggestion  that  we  make  as  they  care  to. 

THE  CHAIRAIAN;  What  is  said,  in  a way,  cannot  be  unsaid,  but  I think 
they  might  be  a good  deal  freer  if  it  were  left  wholly  to  them,  and  without 
any  suggestion  as  to  who  the  arbitrator  shall  be. 

MR.  COHEN : I appreciate  the  Chairman’s  delicacy  in  feeling  uncomfor- 

table with  reference  to  our  suggestion,  but  I really  feel  that  we  are  entitled 
to  ask  the  gentlemen  on  the  other  side,  in  order  to  dispose  of  this  matter 
expeditiously,  that  they  should  not  waste  the  valuable  experience  that  the 
Chairman  of  this  conference  has  gathered,  and  I think,  gentlemen,  if  I may 
be  permitted  to  say  so,  that  it  is  a distinct  advantage  in  negotiations  to  have 
as  the  man  who  is  to  arbitrate  a man  who  enjoys,  as  Mr.  Brandeis  does  now, 

I am  sure,  the  mutual  confidence  of  both,  and  you  will  get  that  confidence 
and  that  experience  together,  and  I think  we  have  the  right  to  ask  you  to 
urge,  in  view  of  your  experience  here,  upon  your  people,  the  wisdom  of  select- 
ing Mr.  Brandeis  as  the  arbitrator. 

AIR.  LONDON:  Air.  Chairman,  I desire  to  state  that  the  most  advisable 

thing  at  the  present  imoment  is  to  leave  these  two  questions  of  hours  and 
wages  in  statu  quo  until  we  have  disposed  of  the  principal  point  which  we 
have  to  discuss  to-day,  and  that  is,  namely,  remedies. 


119 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  It  seems  to  me,  if  that  is  satisfactory,  we  will  leave 

that  matter  precisely  as  it  is,  then,  in  statu  quo,  as  Mr.  London  suggests,  and 
proceed  with  the  discussion  of  the  remedies. 

MR.  COHEN : That  is  satisfactory. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Now,  will  you  or  Mr.  Lennon  or  Mr.  London  make 

a statement  on  your  behalf? 

MR.  LENNON:  I would  prefer  not  to  open  it.  I do  not  live  in  New 

York,  for  one  thing,  and  I would  rather  have  the  opportunity  of  filling  in  the 
vacant  spaces. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  London,  if  you  will,  then  proceed. 

MR.  LONDON:  Well,  now,  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  I do  not  know 

whether  I am  in  a position  to  speak  on  this  subject  as  fully  and  as  thoroughly 
as  I would  like.  I am  physically  exhausted  with  work  for  the  last  four  weeks, 
day  and  night;  I did  not  sleep  last  night  and  I am  almost  on  the  point  of 
hysteria;  but,  however,  there  will  be  no  hysteria  in  it,  I will  say. 

In  the  course  of  the  discussion,  which  has  now  continued  for  three  days, 
we  have  found  one  dominant  note.  Evils  exist.  They  must  be  done  away 
and  these  evils  can  be  done  away  with  if  there  will  be  co-operation  between 
the  organization  of  the  manufacturers  and  the  organization  of  the  employees. 
We  are  now  in  the  midst  of  one  of  the  greatest  strikes  in  the  country.  We 
confess  that  this  strike  is  not  the  result  of  thorough  organization  work.  It 
was  not  an  organized,  disciplined,  well  trained  body  of  men  that  responded 
on  the  7th  day  of  July  to  the  call  of  its  leaders.  It  was  rather  a universal 
outcry  against  wrong,  against  unbearable  conditions,  and  we  are  now  dealing 
with  the  problem  of  how  to  send  these  60,000  men  back  to  work  as  quickly 
as  possible,  under  as  favorable  conditions  as  possible,  and  how  to  make  the 
concessions  which  we  are  mutually  willing  to  make,  permanent,  and  the  im- 
provements which  have  been  suggested  of  a permanent  character.  If  the 
Union  makes  an  agreement  with  an  individual  employer,  while  the  rest  of  the 
employers  have  non-union  men,  only  the  firm,  I want  to  say,  which  employs 
the  members  of  a well  organized  union  will  be  at  a disadvantage.  This  is 
our  first  great  attempt  to  get  the  great  masses  employed  in  the  cloak  trade 
organized.  We  want  them  to  form  an  intelligent  and  effective  organization. 
You  realize  that  hundreds  and  thousands  of  men  employed  in  the  cloak  trade 
are  to-day,  this  momem,  inspired  by  a desire  to  bring  about  a lasting  improve- 
ment. While  a great  many  of  those  who  walked  out  on  strike  may  have 
been  carried  away  by  the  hypnotism  of  the  crowd,  thousands  of  the  intelli- 
gent men  and  women  working  in  the  trade  are  inspired  by  a desire  for  some 
substantial  and  permanent  improvement.  No  substantial  and  permanent  im- 
provement can  be  had  unless  the  members  of  the  Manufacturers’  Association 
feel  that  they  can  persuade  a large  number  of  manufacturers  who  are  not 
in  their  organization  to-day  to  take  the  point  of  view  which  j^our  organization 
has  taken,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  the  unions  will  not  be  in  a position  to 
carry  out  the  promises  they  will  make  and  the  obligations  they  will  assume 
unless  they  are  in  a position  to  discipline  their  members,  unless  they  are 
in  a position  to  exercise  some  form  of  control  over  them,  so  that  the  problem 
before  you  is  how  to  reconcile  the  best  interests  of  the  trade  and  the  best 
interests  of  your  business  with  the  existence  of  a strong,  intelligent  organi- 
zation on  the  part  of  your  employees,  or  of  the  employees  in  the  trade.  We 
find  that  there  is  no  such  thing,  in  fact,  as  co-operation  between  union  and 
non-union  men  in  one  shop.  In  the  most  cases,  two  union  men  and  two  non- 
union men  placed  together  in  the  same  room  are  bound  to  cause  to  the  em- 
ployer more  trouble  than  either  four  union  men  or  four  non-union  men.  I 


120 


don’t  know  whether  our  masses  have  been  educated  enough  to  understand 
or  to  consent  to  work  with  those  cloak  makers  who  are  not  members  of 
the  union.  I would  certainly  say  that  they  would  under  no  circumstances 
work  together  with  a professional  strike  breaker.  I would  not  expect  them 
to,  because  the  professional  strike  breaker  is,  of  all  creatures  in  the  world, 
the  most  contemptible  on.e,  and  I think  you  will  endorse  this  view.  Under 
the  circumstances  I would  ask  the  committee  of  the  manufacturers,  I would 
ask  counsel  for  the  manufacturers,  to  take  as  big  and  broad  a view  of  the 
situation  as  is  possible  under  the  circumstances.  Understand  us,  we  do  not 
come  to  control  your  business;  we  do  not  come  to  control  your 
trade.  I,  personally,  would  have  liked  to  see  a state  of  affairs 
where  mankind  should  control  everything  in  a co-operative  effort, 
but  I realize  that  in  the  year  1910  and  in  the  cloak  trade  it  is  hardly  possible 
of  realization,  and  I have  so  advised  my  clients,  and  they  have  agreed  with 
me  in  that  view.  Now,  then,  if  you  take  a big  and  broad  view  of  the  situa- 
tion, you  will  see  that  the  strengthening  of  the  organization,  the  strengthen- 
ing of  the  union,  means  the  strengthening  and  the  making  permanent  of 
those  improvements  which  we  are  contemplating  to-day.  It  is  to  your  advan- 
tage that  we  should  have  a well  organized  union,  a well  disciplined  union,  an 
intelligent  conducted  union.  I do  not  say  that  we  will  cease  to  fight  about 
vital  issues.  No.  This  fight  is  irrepressible.  This  contest  is  irrepressible. 
You  must,  in  the  natural  course  of  events,  try  to  get  as  much  out  of  your 
laborers  as  possible,  and  we  must,  in  the  natural  course  of  events,  try  to 
obtain  as  much  for  our  labor  as  possible.  When  I speak  of  co-operation  I 
do  not  speak  of  self-annihilation.  We  do  intend  to  keep  up  our  fight  for 
better  conditions.  I,  personally,  believe  that  in  time  we  will  fight  for  the 
introduction  of  the  weekly  scale  of  wages,  and  with  the  doing  away  of  piece- 
work. That  may  be  done  in  the  next  five  years,  as  the  result  of  purely  educa- 
tional work,  if  it  is  possible,  in  the  trade.  Now,  then,  I ask  you  again,  gen- 
tlemen— it  is  fortunate  that  you  are  advised  by  Mr.  Julius  Henry  Cohen  in 
this  case;  that  Mr.  Cohen  is  connected  with  the  ethical  culture  movement, 
and  with  the  highest  ideals,  which  should  be  the  ideals  of  the  legal  profession; 
he  has  the  ideals  of  tlie  ethical  culture  movement.  We  must  not  look  upon 
this  proposition  as  a question  of  dollars  and  cents.  Sixty  thousand  human 
beings  are  impatiently  awaiting  the  result  of  this  conference.  In  Heaven’s 
name,  let  us  be  as  big  and  broad  and  as  intelligently  deal  with  the  problem 
as  any  man  ever  did  with  any  problem.  I ask  you  to  consider  seriously  my 
proposition  that  it  should  be  your  effort  to  assist  us  in  building  up  a strong 
organization. 

MR.  COHEN  : Mr.  Chairman,  I am  sorry  that  Mr.  London  took  occasion  to 

refer  in  express  language  to  inv  own  position  in  this  matter.  I had  hoped  that 
my  conduct  would  speak  louder  than  any  words.  On  our  side  of  this  situation  I 
am  not  now  attempting  to  speak  for  all  of  the  manufacturers  of  New  York,  no 
more  than  you  have  spoken  for  all  of  the  employees  in  New  York.  We  have  felt 
that  this  was  a large  human  problem,  which  had  to  be  dealt  with;  we  have  felt 
that  the  strike  was  an  unfortunate  strike ; we  have  felt  that  it  was  begun  in  an 
unfortunate  way  and  in  an  unjust  way.  We  have  been  reluctant,  as  I said  yes- 
terday, to  deal  with  the  union  as  an  organized  body,  not  because,  as  intelligent 
men — when  I say  “we”  of  course  I am  speaking  for  my  people — not  because  we 
do  not  recognize,  as  you  do,  the  value  of  trades  unionism,  but  for  the  very  reason 
that  Mr.  London  has  so  eloquently  pointed  out.  When  a trade  union  cannot 
control  its  members,  when  it  cannot  discipline  its  members,  when  it  is  led  by  agi- 
tators and  demagogues  instead  of  by  sane  men,  understanding  the  ideals  and  the 


121 


purposes  of  the  organization,  it  does  more  harm  than  the  manufacturers  can  pos- 
sibly repair.  To  encourage  an  organization  led  by  anarchists  is  to  produce 
anarchism;  to  encourage  an  organization  that  has  fundamental  principles  that  are 
inimical  to  the  principles  of  American  freedom,  would  be  to  tend  to  destroy  Amer- 
ican freedom,  and  we  have  approached  this  situation,  gentlemen,  representing  the 
unions,  we  confess  it,  with  fear  and  distrust,  not  of  individuals,  but  of  the  groups 
whom  you  represent.  In  other  words,  we  felt  that  even  if  you  men  at  this  table 
here  came  to  an  intelligent  conclusion,  that  you  have  not  yet  gotten  your  people 
to  the  state  where  you  could  get  them  to  accept  rationally  the  conclusion  that 
you  reached. 

Now,  we  have  demonstrated — we  have  demonstrated  beyond  question — the  abil- 
ity of  the  people  on  our  side  of  the  table,  represented  in  person,  to  agree  with  the 
people  on  the  other  side  of  the  table,  represented  in  person.  We  can  control  the 
men  in  our  association,  because  there  will  be  no  men  in  our  association  who  do 
not  live  up  to  the  agreement  that  we  make  with  you,  and  we  have  the  element  of 
pride  on  the  part  of  the  manufacturer  as  an  asset  in  the  machinery  that  we  shall 
evolve.  I shall,  if  I am  permitted  to  continue  to  advise  this  association,  urge  upon 
them  the  adoption  of  trade  rules  and  regulations  which  shall  carry  out  the  spirit 
of  the  agreement  that  we  enter  into  here  as  the  result  of  this  conference,  and  for  a 
violation  of  a trade  regulation  there  shall  l>e  the  same  punishment  as  exists  in 
other  associations  for  which  I am  counsel — discipline,  suspension  in  cases  where  the 
offense  is  of  minor  consequence,  and  ultimate  expulsion  if  it  is  of  serious  or  con- 
tinuous flagrancy.  We  accept  absolutely  now  the  proposition  that  you  should  have 
a strong  union.  We  want  your  union  to  be  so  powerful  that  when  it  sends  a 
Dyche  or  a Rosenberg  or  a Bloch  to  a conferncce,  it  will  never  again  be  necessary 
for  them  to  go  back  for  further  instructions  to  agree  with  us.  We  know  we  have 
the  confidence  of  our  members,  so  that  our  proposals  and  our  acceptances  of  your 
proposals  will  be  carried  out  by  our  association.  We  want  you  men,  or  the  men 
who  take  your  places  hereafter,  so  to  have  the  confidence  of  your  members  that 
when  you  come  to  this  table  and  make  solemn  assurances  you  will  not  stay  awake 
all  night  to  be  certain,  or  debating  whether  or  not  your  people  will  stand  by  you, 
and  the  issue  to-day,  gentlemen,  is  whether  as  a practical  matter  you  can  control 
your  people  so  as  to  make  your  association  a really  effective  one. 

We  do  not  undertake  to  get  into  our  association  every  cloak  manufacturer  in 
New  York,  but,  Mr.  Chairman,  we  propose  to  use  every  legitimate  argument  to 
convince  every  cloak  and  skirt  and  suit  manufacturer  in  this  town  that  it  is  his 
business  to  belong  to  our  association.  It  is  his  business  as  a man : it  is  his  busi- 
ness as  a business  man — because  we  propose  to  speak  for  him  in  making  obligations 
with  the  employees  hereafter,  and  we  shall  go  with  this  conference  and  the  results 
of  this  conference  as  the  best  arguments  that  we  can  make  to  these  men  to  get  them 
into  our  association.  We  do  not  expect  to  get  all ; we  cannot  get  all,  but  we  will 
do  our  best,  and  we  expect  you,  Mr.  London,  with  the  same  eloquence  and  per^ 
suasive  powers  which  you  have  to  endeavor  to  convince  everv  man  in  our  estab- 
lishments that  the  results  that  you  have  produced  here  are  the  results  of  organiza- 
tion, and  that  he  is  loyally  bound  to  help  the  organization  that  helped  to  produce 
that  result,  and  our  doors  will  be  wide  open  to  you  to  use  that  persuasion ; we  shall 
never  endeavor  to  interfere  with  it.  Indeed,  we  shall  co-operate  with  you  in  mak- 
ing the  men  who  have  differed  with  you  in  the  past  see  your  point  of  view : but 
you  would  be  the  last  man  in  the  world,  sir,  to  ask  us  to  surrender  any  of  the 
principles  that  we  hold  dear.  You  would  respect  us  less  if  we  did,  and  we  would 
respect  you  less  if  you  did,  and  that  principle  you  have  recognized,  sir.  in  your 
frank  statement  that  you  do  not  come  to  control  our  factories. 


122 


Now,  it  seems  to  me  that  with  that  principle  so  clear — with  that  principle,  or, 
perhaps  if  I may  go  back  a moment — let  us  lay  clown  the  principles  on  which  we 
shall  construct  this  edifice,  this  fundamental  stone.  The  first  is,  as  stated  by  Mr. 
I.ondon,  that  it  is  essential  that  a strong  union  organization  shall  exist.  The  sec- 
ond principle,  not  stated  by  Mr.  London,  but  I am  sure  implied,  is  that  our  associa- 
tion should  be  a strong  association.  The  third  principle  is  that  we  should,  to- 
gether, the  groups  who  are  here  now  on  both  sides  of  the  table,  give  all  their  best 
intellect  to  the  job  of  finding  the  ways  and  means  of  carrying  out  that  co-operation. 
The  principles  that  I have  accepted  from  Mr.  London  in  his  address  is  that  you 
do  not  come  to  control  our  factories.  Norv,  gentlemen,  ]\Ir.  London  has  said  that 
there  will  continue  to  be  a contest  between  us.  We  lawyers  have  learned  that  the 
truth  is  best  ascertained  when  two  people  charged  with  the  duty  each  of  presenting 
his  side,  presents  it  with  the  greatest  vigor  and  with  the  greatest  force,  and  while 
there  may  be  error  on  both  sides,  the  result  of  that  conflict  is  the  truth,  and  we 
expect  you  to  be  loyal  to  your  ideals,  loyal  to  your  propositions,  and  we  shall  expect 
you  to  expect  us  to  be  loyal  to  ours,  and  we  shall  hereafter  try  to  find  out  your 
reasons ; we  want  you  to  try  to  find  out  ours.  Good  God,  men,  is  it  necessary  to 
have  war  to  settle  such  conflicts  of  opinion  as  that?  Is  it  necessary  that  so  many 
people  should  be  suffering  in  order  that  we  may  adjust  prices?  In  order  that  we 
may  abolish  unsanitary  conditions  ? In  order  that  we  may  abolish  tenement  house 
work?  If  we  join  hands  across  this  table  and  leave  this  group  in  this  room  work 
together,  ought  not  war  to  be  relegated  to  the  last  place,  to  be  resorted  to  only  as 
the  last  resort,  in  this  day  of  1910,  when  a universal  peace  movement  is  sweeping 
over  the  world?  We  may  not  bury  our  dead  on  the  battlefields,  but  we  are  bury- 
ing misery  every  day,  and  your  people  are  suffering  most  because  they  need  their 
earnings  most.  Let  us  find  a way  by  which  hereafter  you  may  discuss  the  things 
that  you  think  you  are  eirtitled  to,  just  as  we  have  done  it  here,  with  reason,  with 
order,  with  a presiding  officer  in  whom  we  have  confidence,  with  a yielding  on  our 
part  and  a yielding  on  yours,  and  let  us  resort  to  the  strike  or  the  lockout  only 
when  we  feel  on  either  side  that  the  other  has  asked  us  to  surrender  something 
which  we  ought  not  to  surrender. 

We  have  been  willing  to  go  on  with  this  strike  if  it  were  a fight  for  principle, 
because  we  believed  that  we  were  carrying  our  colors  bravely  and  taking  the  conse- 
quences bravely.  If  it  came  to  an  adjustment  of  grievances  between  our  employees 
and  ourselves,  we  have  always  been  willing,  and  I do  Mr.  London  the  credit  of 
believing  that  when  he  discovered  that  I was  counsel  for  this  association  that  he 
might  be  sure  that  so  far  as  in  me  lay,  the  ethical  attitude  would  be  taken  toward 
this  problem ; and  I have  insisted — perhaps  I should  not  use  that  word — told  my 
people  whom  I represent,  that  my  advice  is  to  consider  the  grievances  of  their  em- 
ployees and  try  to  find  an  equitable  adjustment  of  them.  Do  not  forget,  gentle- 
men, this  is  not  the  time  to  find  foult.  I forgive  and  forget,  but  do  not  forget, 
gentlemen,  that  you  have  not  the  ways  of  diplomacy.  You  may  have  done  some- 
thing in  this  situation  here  that  makes  it  impossible  for  us  to  act  otherwise  than  we 
did.  Now,  let  bygones  be  bygones.  We  have  got  the  principles  of  co-operation 
established.  There  is  no  disagreement  between  us.  I am  confident  that  when  it 
comes  to  the  legal  machinery  or  the  technical  machinery  or  language,  that  Mr. 
London,  with  his  legal  ability,  and  mine,  that  so  much  as  I possess,  with  the  assis- 
tance of  the  chairman,  who  is  far  superior — may  I say  it,  Mr.  London  ? 

MR.  LONDON : Yes. 

MR.  COHEN  (continuing)  : To  either  of  us,  who  has  had  more  experience  in 
these  matters  than  both  of  us  combined,  and  who  has  the  fairness  to  see  our  point 
of  view,  both  of  us  will  give — I feel  confident  that  out  of  this  room  will  go  a docu- 
ment that  will  mark  an  era  for  you  and  an  era  for  us. 


123 


THE  CHAIRMAN  : Mr.  Lennon. 

MR.  LENNON : Mr.  Pre.sident  and  gentlemen,  the  object  to  be  desired,  and 

what  we  all  desire  is  that  whatever  agreement  may  be  reached  as  to  wages  and  as 
to  hours  and  conditions  of  labor,  that  there  will  be  a possibility  of  their  being  made 
effective,  and  after  saying  a few  words  preliminarily,  I am  going  to  state  my 
views  plainly.  I want  to  call  your  attention  to  the  fact,  Mr.  President  and  gen- 
tlemen, that  a manufacturers’  association,  in  all  trades,  is  composed  of  men  whose 
opportunities  and  advantages,  at  least  after  they  came  into  the  business,  is  far  su- 
perior to  that  of  the  men  who  have  to  work.  I want  to  call  attention  to  another 
thing,  which  is  something  of  tremendous  importance.  A manufacturers’  associa- 
tion can  choose  their  members ; we  cannot.  Whoever  the  employer  hires,  we  have 
got  to  take  into  the  union,  good,  bad,  or  indifferent,  or  whatever  he  may  be,  in  or- 
der to  protect  the  trade.  In  consequence  of  that,  and  I am  not  saying  this  as  any 
reflection,  because  it  is  the  outgrowth  of  the  situation  and  nothing  else — in  conse- 
quence of  that,  in  this  industry  and  in  the  clothing  industry,  and  in  the  railroad 
industry,  in  certain  lines,  during  recent  years,  at  any  rate,  the  immigration  from 
European  countries  and  some  from  Asiatic  countries,  as  soon  as  they  reach  this 
country,  are  brought  into  our  industrial  life,  and  the  union  has  to  make  the  best 
they  can  of  the  situation  and  take  them  in,  with  their  prejudices  and  their  ignorance 
and  their  lack  of  knowledge  of  American  institutions,  and  train  them  as  fast  as 
they  can  to  make  good  trade  unionists,  but,  unfortunately,  and  I have  told  the  peo- 
ple down  on  the  East  Side  plainer  than  I can  say  it  here — the  Ghetto  is  in  the 
United  States  as  well  as  it  is  in  Russia,  and  it  has  no  business  there.  If  those  peo- 
ple could  be  scattered  through  Illinois  and  Iowa  and  Indiana  and  Ohio  and  ^Michi- 
gan,  or  some  of  them,  at  any  rate,  and  those  that  have  to  live  in  New  York  were 
scattered  all  over  the  city,  where  they  would  come  in  touch  with  all  races  of  peo- 
ple, those  distinctive  things  that  make  it  hard  to  deal  witih  this  question,  many  of 
them,  would  disappear,  but  that  is  only  an  attempt  to  perhaps  be — to  deal  with  gen- 
eral questions. 

Now,  for  the  specific  question.  This  organization  of  cloak  makers  in  the  City 
of  New  York  can  only  control  the  situation  where  union  people  are  employed. 
They  have  absolutely  no  control  of  the  situation  where  non-union  people  are  em- 
ployed. They  cannot  enforce  any  rules  nor  any  discipline  of  any  kind,  shape  or 
description,  and  if  we  are  to  co-operate  in  a way  that  will  be  absolutely  effective, 
then  the  members  of  the  Manufacturers’  Association,  after  this  discussion  that  we 
have  had  for  a couple  of  days,  it  seems  to  me,  should  see  that  the  necessary  first 
step  is  that  they  shall  run  what  we  call  union  shops ; that  without  that  there  is  no 
possibility,  in  so  far  as  those  particular  shops  are  concerned,  for  the  union  to  proni- 
i.se  anything.  Now,  let  us  see.  We  will  say  that  one  of  your  establishments  has 
twenty  cutters.  Fifteen  or  sixteen  of  them  are  union  men,  and  four  or  five  are 
non-union  men.  Any  breach  of  the  thing  agreed  upon,  so  far  as  the  cutters  are 
concerned,  by  the  four  or  five  non-union  cutters,  is  not  under  the  disciplinary  power 
of  the  cutters’  organization  in  the  slightest  degree,  not  in  the  least.  What  is  true 
of  that  branch  of  the  trade  is  true  of  all  the  branches ; and  let  me  call  attention  to 
another  thing,  and  I am  not  going  to  appeal  to  the  chairman  for  any  views  upon 
any  subject,  but  I want  to  call  attention  to  something  that  I know  to  be  a fact. 
There  is  absolutely  no  such  thing  as  the  open  shop.  I say  that  from  my  observa- 
tion there  is  no  such  thing  as  an  open  shop.  They  are  either  union  shops  or  they 
are  non-union  shops.  In  the  industry  with  which  our  chairman  is  most  familiar, 
just  as  soon  as  there  is  any  one  employed  in  the  factory  that  is  not  union,  the  shop 
is  a non-union  shop;  just  that  minute,  and  so  in  my  trade,  and  so  in  all  trades,  and 
therefore,  the  impossibility  of  efficient  co-operation.  I want  to  see  this  thing  set- 
tled in  this  city,  and  I want  to  see  a foundation  builded  upon  which  a structure 


124 


can  be  erected,  whereby  the  manufacturers  shall  be  permitted  in  doing  a legitimate 
business,  and  the  manufacturers  who  do  an  illegitimate  business,  because  of  the 
fact  that  the  union  can  secure  the  membership  in.  the  small  factories,  and  hold  the 
membership  in  the  small  factories,  if  they  have  the  example  of  the  large  ones,  by 
forcing  them  to  pay  the  same  prices  and  live  up  to  the  same  conditions,  we  can  put 
the  fellow  out  of  business— to  talk  plain — that  won’t  deal  on  the  square.  But  if 
th>'"re  is  not  the  larger  factories  as  union  factories,  then  the  union  cannot  do  any- 
thing in  these  small  factories.  I talk  to  you  just  plainly  as  I see  the  situation,  and 
1 do  not  believe  you  want  to  have  me  talk  any  other  way.  Now,  as  to  one  matter, 
and  I know  manufacturers  fear  it,  and  I know  all  classes  of  employers  fear  it,  and 
that  is  what  they  call  interference  with  their  business.  A union  has  no  right  to 
interfere  with  anything  at  all  except  that  which  has  to  do  with  their  employment. 
They  have  no  right  to  in  any  way,  shape  or  manner  interfere  with  the  business 
arrangements  of  any  institution,  no  matter  what  it  is.  Their  right  of  interference 
ends  when  they  protect  their  interests  as  working  men,  and  that  is  as  far  as  they 
have  any  right  to  go,  and  I believe  a lesson  has  been  taught  in  this  city  among  those 
people,  among  those  who  are  active  in  the  organization,  that  if  the  union  shop  is 
established,  that  there  will  be  no  such  interference,  and  if  there  is,  that  the  labor 
movement  of  the  country  can  very  effectively  and  will  undertake  very  effectively 
to  see  that  it  is  put  a stop  to.  Now,  I say  that  the  first  step  toward  making  co- 
operation effective  is  the  union  shop. 

MR.  COHEN:  iWhat  do  you  mean  by  “the  union  shop,”  Mr.  Lennon? 

MR,  LENNON : I mean  that  in  the  branches  which  are  not  excepted,  and 

that  was  the  designer  and  the  foreman,  if  I remember  right,  that  the  emplo/yes 
shall  all  belong  to  the  union. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : I do  not  understand  that  Mr.  Lennon  is  at  all  dis- 

cussing a closed  shop  proposition.  Mr.  Lennon  understands  that  the  whole 
proceeding  here  is — the  whole  conference  proceeds  upon  the  agreement  that 
the  closed  shop  shall  not  be  one  of  the  subjects  discussed.  I have  assumed 
that  what  Mr.  Lennon  meant,  and  I think  I am  right  in  that  assumption,  from 
my  knowledge  of  union — general  union  phraseology-^ — that  he  refers  by  a 
“union  shop”  to  a shop  which  has  reached  that  high  degree  of  perfection  in 
organization  that  everybody  in  it  is  a union  man,  and  not  by  agreement  with 
the  employer,  but  as  a result  of  those  processes  of  persuasion  that  have  been 
so  effective  in  extending  the  union  body.  I think  that  that  obviously  is  what 
Mr.  Lennon  means,  because  it  would  be  a distinct  breach  of  the  terms  on 
which  our  meeting  and  conference  has  proceeded,  if  what  we  commonly  call 
the  “closed  shop”  were  a subject  before  us. 

MR.  LONDON:  May  I say  a word  or  two?  While  I yield  to  the  con- 

struction put  upon  the  remarks  of  Mr.  Lennon  by  the  Chairman,  I would  say 
that  the  subject  of  the  closed  shop  can  be  taken  up  under  the  subject  of  reme- 
dies, if  we  reach  the  conclusion — if  we  reach  the  conclusion  that  there  can  be 
no  remedies  suggested  other  than  the  closed  shop. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : I think,  Mr.  London,  that  the  subject  of  the  closed 

sihop — I should  rule  that  the  subject  of  the  closed  shop  could  not  be  discussed 
at  all,  except  with  the  absolute  consent  of  everyone  who  has  entered  here  into 
the  conference,  because  it  was  expressly  understood,  and  I gave  my  assur- 
ance upon  m3-  own  understanding  of  the  written  document  which  I received, 
that  that  was  a subject  which  could  not  be  brought  up,  and  we  proceeded 
wholly  on  that. 

MR.  LONDON : Was  it  your  understanding,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  it  could 

not  be  brought  up  under  the  subject  of  remedies? 

125 


THE  CHAIRMAN  : It  was  my  understanding  that  it  could  not  be  dis- 

cussed at  all. 

MR.  LONDON:  Even  under  the  subject  of  remedies? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Under  any  circumstances;  that  it  was  one  of  the 

tabooed  subjects,  so  far  as  this  conference  was  concerned.  Of  course,  it 
always  would  be  within  the  power  of  any  men  who  make  an  agreement  to 
change  it ; but  that  it  was  upon  that  express  understanding.  On  the  other 
hand,  qf  course,  the  subject  of  approaching  perfection  in  this  and  in  other 
irespects  is  a subject  that  is  open,  and  I conceive  that  to  be  but  a general  step 
in  the  movement  of  strengthening  the  union,  and  further,  like  Pear’s  soap,  it 
is  99^2  per  cent,  pure,  or  whet’ner,  like;  some  other  soaps,  it  is  only  95  per 
cent.,  is  another  question.  That  is  a question  of  degree,  but  I consider  the 
question  of  a closed  shop  an  entirely  different  proposition  from  any  other,  and 
that  different  proposition  I assume  to  be  excluded  by  our  agreement.  I 
should  certainly  myself,  and  I am  a party  with  you  in  that,  because  I acted 
for  the  unions  in  arranging  this  conference — I should  consider  myself  pre- 
cluded from  even  discussing  in  conference 

MR.  LONDON : Unless  as  a remedy — if  we  reach  the  conclusion  that  it  is 

a remedy? 

THE  CHAIRMAN : No.  I should  consider  that  even  as  a remedy  it 

cannot  be  discussed  here,  and  by  virtue  of  the  very  terms,  because  you  will 
remember,  Mr.  London,  that  the  agreement  which  you  had — I mean  the  propo- 
sition which  authorized  me  to  negotiate  with  these  gentlemen  on  behalf  of  the 
union,  and  which  was  drawn  by  you,  with  some  few  suggestions  from  me, 
we  undertook  to  set  forth  not  only  the  grievances,  but  the  remedies  which 
we  suggested,  and  I do  not  mean  to  say  that  those  cannot  be  varied,  but  I 
should  consider  the  closed  shop,  whatever  be  the  purpose  of  the  discussion, 
was  a subject  that  cannot  be  brought  up  in  fairness  to  anyone. 

MR.  LONDON : That  does  not  exclude  the  discussion  of  the  question  of  a 

union  shop? 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Certainly  not,  because,  as  I say,  union  is  merely  a 

degree.  It  is  an  end  which  everybody  who  favors  a union  must  long  for,  as 
we  long  for  perfection  in  other  things.  That  is,  it  is  the  attainment  of  your 
highest  perfection  in  your  process  of  organizing  labor,  and  as  that  high  per- 
fection, or  a very  high  perfection  is  something  that  everybody  here  is  agreed 
on,  I think  we  can  talk  about  reaching  perfection. 

MR.  LENNON  : I am  requested  to  ask  for  a few  minutes’  opportunit}"  for 

our  delegates  to  consult. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : I think  we  will  adjourn,  then,  for  luncheon,  and  I 

was  going  to  say  this,  gentlemen— I want  to  say  that  I have  never  had  the 
opportunity  of  participating  in  a conference  on  labor  matters  which  has  been 
conducted,  on  the  whole,  with  such  intelligence  and  fairness  and  considera- 
tion as  this  one.  I have  never  had  the  opportunity  of  attending  at  any  con- 
ference where  I felt  that  the  progress  made  in  the  interests  of  a better  condi- 
tion of  the  trade,  and,  specifically,  a better  condition  of  the  working  people 
has  advanced  as  rapidly  as  here.  Now,  I think  both  of  you  were  right  in  the 
suggestions  that  there  is  the  hope  of  doing  something  that  is  really  great  and 
epoch  making  in  the  movement  of  co-operation,  and  in  the  movement,  specific- 
ally, of  the  organization  of  labor,  as  a necessary  instrument  toward  the  im- 
provement of  the  condition  of  labor. 

MR.  LENNON : V/e  would  like  to  have  you  wait  five  minutes  before 

adjourning. 


126 


THE  CHAIRMAN : Well,  we  will  only  take  a little  recess.  We  are  not 

going  out  for  luncheon.  We  are  going  to  stay  right  in  this  room,  you  ad- 
journing to  your  own  room,  and  I was  going  to  say,  I should  like  to  have  per- 
haps, before  we  resume  our  work  here,  a little  talk  independently  with  each 
body,  if  that  is  agreeable. 

MR.  COHEN  : Very  satisfactory. 

MR.  LONDON;  Yes. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : I will  speak  first  with  the  manufacturers,  and  then 

with  you  gentlemen,  if  I may. 

(A  recess  was  taken  for  the  purpose  of  affording  opportunity  for 
private  conference.) 

(The  Chairman  later  again  called  the  conference  to  order.) 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Gentlemen,  some  hours  ago,  as  we  adjourned  for 

a bite  of  luncheon,  I stated  that  I would,  with  the  permission  of  both  parties, 
have  a private  discussion  with  the  representatives  of  the  union  and  a private 
discussion  with  the  representatives  of  the  manufacturers,  with  a view  to 
seeing  whether  I could  possibly  suggest  some  proper  method  of  accomplish- 
ing the  result  which  I feel  all  desired  to  accomplish;  that  is,  of  an  effective 
co-operateion  between  the  manufacturers  and  the  union,  which  would  involve, 
of  necessity,  a strong  union.  As  I stated  then,  I realized  that  the  subject  of 
the  closed  shop  could  not  be  considered  at  this  conference,  but  that  I did 
believe  that  it  was  within  the  terms  of  the  agreement  under  which  we  came 
together,  and  was  in  the  desires  of  all,  that  the  union  should  be  so  strength- 
ened that  in  the  course  of  time  they  might  ultimately  have  practically  all,  if 
not  all,  of  the  operatives  in  the  shops  as  their  members.  Now,  I realized, 
not  only  from  a consideration  of  what  was  disclosed  in  this,  but  from  a con- 
sideration of  general  union  questions,  that  in  the  ordinary  open  shop,  where 
that  prevails,  there  is  great  difficulty  in  building  up  the  union.  It  is  done, 
but  it  is  done  by  very  great  effort,  and  at  the  end  of  a very  long  time  fre- 
quently. I felt,  therefore,  particularly  in  view  of  the  fact  that  so  many  of 
the  members  of  the  Garment  Workers’  Union  are  recent  members,  that  to 
make  an  effective  union  it  was  necessary  that  you  should  be  aided,  so  far 
as  you  could  be  properly,  by  the  manufacturers,  and  it  seemed  to  me  that 
that  aid  could  be  effectively  and  properly  given  by  providing  that  the  manu- 
facturers should,  in  the  employment  of  labor  hereafter,  give  the  preference 
to  union  men,  where  the  union  men  were  equal  in  efficiency  to  any  non-union 
applicants.  I felt  that  with  that  preference,  and  with  the  intelligent  and 
effective  work  which  union  leaders  could  do,  and  ought  to  be  called  upon  to 
do,  that  you  would  have  the  opportunity  of  controlling,  so  far  as  the  labor 
end  is  concerned,  the  conduct  that  should  come  to  any  particular  shop.  Your 
men  would  be  in  control,  and  that  even  if  it  should  happen  that  in  individual 
shops  a small  percentage  of  other  men  should  be  in,  owing  to  particular  con- 
ditions, that  that  would  not  interfere  with  the  union.  Now,  that  was  the  basic 
idea  which  I had  to  present  to  the  manufacturers  on  the  one  side,  and  to  the 
unions  on  the  other.  It  involved,  of  course,  this  as  a consideration:  In  the 
first  place,  that  the  decision  in  regard  to  who  was  a competent  person  to 
admit  and  to  retain  in  the  employ  must  rest  with  the  employer,  just  as  it 
does  in  every  union  shop,  in  every  closed  shop;  but  that  if  anyone  should 
be  guilty  of  discrimination,  which  would  mean  really  guilt  of  unfairness  in 
deciding  that  question,  like  any  other  question  of  discrimination,  it  would 
be  decided  by  the  appropriate  board,  and  that  you  would  have  protection 
in  that  respect.  I felt,  too,  that  so  far  as  there  might  now  be  in  the  employ 
of  individual  manufacturers  men  who  were  not  union  members,  and  who 


127 


could  not  be  induced  lo  join  the  union  by  the  ordinary  means  of  persuasion, 
that  the  manufacturers  must,  in  duty  to  their  own  loyal  help,  have  the  oppor- 
tunity of  keeping  those  men.  Now,  that  presented  in  the  rough  what  seemed 
to  me  a proper  basis  for  coming  together.  I felt  that  that  would  accomplish, 
and  probably  that  alone  would  accomplish,  everything  that  was  desired  in 
results.  I felt  it  would  be  infinitely  more  effective  in  result  than  a closed 
shop  agreement  entered  into  under  the  duress  of  a strike,  and  entered  into, 
as  it  would  be,  with  reservations— as  many  of  them  certainly  have  been — with 
reservations  that  men  were  going  to  withdraw  from  those  agreements  and 
evade  the  agreement  at  the  first  opportunity.  Such  an  arrangement  as  I 
have  proposed  rests  for  its  efficacy  necessarily  upon  good  faith.  It  will  be 
effective  if  the  employers,  on  the  one  hand — the  employers’  association — and 
the  union  on  the  other  meant  to  deal  as  honorable  men  with  one  another, 
with  a recognition  that  their  dealing  together  was  dealing  as  allies  in  a gen- 
eral effort  to  improve  conditions  in  the  trade,  which  all  of  you  want.  Now, 
I am  as  much  aware  as  any  of  you  here  could  be  that  such  an  arrangement 
involves  difficulties — great  difficulties;  but  I say  the  difficulties  are  far  less 
and  the  prospects  of  success  under  it  are  far  greater  than  by  any  other 
arrangement  v/hich  I have  been  able  to  consider.  I realize  equally  that  if 
the  manufacturers  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  union  leaders  on  the  other  hand, 
should  approve — I mean  thos*e  present — should  approve  of  such  an  arrangement, 
that  it  would  require  very  considerable  effort  on  their  part  to  induce  their 
associates,  who  have  not  had  the  benefit  of  conferring  for  days,  each  wfith 
the  other  here,  of  the  wisdom,  of  the  possibility  of  doing  this.  And  while  I 
consider  that,  too,  to  ;:>e  a difficult  task,  I am  convinced  that  it  is  a possible 
task,  and  that  if  you  gentlemen  would  undertake  on  each  side  courageously 
to  present  the  advantages  that  would  be  gained  by  such  a course,  it  is  so 
clearly  promising,  and  the  advance  is  so  very  great  over  any  conditions  that 
could  be  obtained  in  any  other  way,  that  you  could  educate  even  those  who 
now  would  be  bitterly  opposed  to  any  such  suggestion — you  can  educate 
them  to  an  understanding  of  it,  and  an  adoption  of  it.  I think  that  if  such 
an  arrangement  as  we  have  discussed  can  be  accomplished,  it  wfill  be  the 
greatest  advance,  not  only  that  unionism  has  ever  made  in  this  country,  but 
it  would  be  one  of  the  greatest  advances  that  has  generally  been  made  in 
improving  the  condition  of  the  working  man,  for  wdiich  unionism  is  merely 
an  instrument.  Now,  I know  that  this  suggestion  wfill  be  met  and  does  run 
counter  to  the  views  and  prejudices  probably  of  a good  many  of  those  who 
are  here,  but  I want  you  gentlemen  not  to  act  hastily  in  rejecting  it,  or 
indeed  hastily  in  accepting  it,  but  to  consider  it  carefully,  and  to  consider 
whether  it  does  not,  on  the  whole,  offer  an  opportunity  that  is  so  great  that 
it  should  not  be  allowed  to  pass. 

MR.  COHEN:  Mav  I say  a word,  klr.  Chairman? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Cohen. 

MR.  COHEN:  The  suggestion  that  you  made,  Mr.  Chairman,  was  one 

that  the  manufacturers  had  difficulty  in  considering,  and  if  it  is  to  be  accepted 
by  our  association,  its  acceptance  will  turn  upon  the  question  of  whether  or 
not  the  body  of  the  union  responds  to  the  wise  leadership  that  has  thus  far 
been  displayed  on  the  other  side  of  the  table. 

MR.  LENNON : Mr.  Chairman,  and  gentlemen  of  the  conference,  I want 

first,  on  behalf  of  our  committee,  to  express  our  appreciation  and  regard  for 
the  Chairman  and  for  his  fairness.  That  expression  is  not  necessarilv  for 
myself,  because  I have  knorvn  Mr.  Brandeis  and  knowm  of  him  for  a good  many 
years.  I want  also  to  express  our  appreciation  of  the  pleasant  and  gentle- 


128- 


manly  way  in  which  the  discussions  have  been  carried  on.  I desire  to  say  to 
you  that  every  feature  that  enters  into  this  controversy  has  had  the  most 
careful  consideration  of  not  only  the  members  of  this  committee,  but  of  others 
in  the  organization  with  whom  we  are  associated.  We  have  spent  all  night 
and  several  nights,  and  we  have  spent  hours  in  the  day  time  giving'  every 
phase  of  this  matter  consideration.  When  we  received  the  propositions  from 
the  employers,  w'hile,  numerically,  there  were  a number  of  the  propositions 
that  we  had  raised  that  were  practically  conceded  to  the  union,  the  funda- 
mental issues,  those  which  are  of  most  vital  importance  to  the  people  who 
are  in  this  industry  as  workmen,  as  to  an  increase  of  wages  and  as  to  a reduc- 
tion of  the  hours  of  labor,  were  grievouslv  disappointing  to  us.  In  fact,  at 
least  as  to  a part  of  the  industry,  the  tender  of  the  employers  as  to  the  weekly 
wage — the  other  wage  not  having  been  before  us — that  of  piece  workers,  was 
not  better  than  exists  in  some  parts  of  the  trade  in  this  city  now,  and  is  not 
as  good  as  exists  in  some  portions  of  the  country  outside  of  New  York.  As 
to  the  matter  of  hours  of  labor,  the  proposition  of  the  employers  in  this  con- 
ference, representing  their  organization,  is  not  a material  change  from  that 
which  now  exists.  The  representatives  of  the  union  feel  that  the  contest  which 
is  on  in  New  York  is  fundamentally  because  of  the  fact  that  people  who  work 
for  a living  in  the  cloak  and  skirt  industry  want  to  make  better  wages  and 
consequently  live  better,  and  want  less  hours  of  labor,  in  order  that  those  who 
have  a degree  of  experience  and  intelligence  may  have  an  opportunity  to  reach 
them,  and  impart  to  them  somq  of  the  greater  degree  of  intelligence  Ithat 
their  opportunities  may  have  given  them.  In  the  discussion  of  methods  to 
carry  an  agreement  into  effect,  should  one  be  reached,  we  believe  they  are 
entirely  inadequate  to  meet  the  situation,  and  that  the  adoption  of  any  of  the 
remedies  proposed  would  leave  us  in  a worse  state  than  we  are  now,  and  that 
both  sides  would  be  grievously  disappointed,  and  that  nothing  would  have 
been  accomplished  except  ill  rather  than  good,  and  for  that  reason  1 am 
directed  by  the  members  of  our  part  of  the  conference  to  express  for  them 
the  statement  that  we  believe  the  conference  should  now  close. 

MR.  COHEN : Before  the  conference  closes  I desire  to  remind  Mr. 

Lennon  that  the  discussion  as  to  wages  and  as  to  hours  of  labor  has  not  ter- 
minated; that  we  offered  to  submit  that  question  to  arbitration,  and  that  the 
unions  have  come  to  us  with  a statement  that  they  had  no  power  at  present 
to  change  the  demands  made  by  them.  The  proposition  which  we  made  is 
based  upon  a recognition  of  differences  in  classification  not  recognized  in 
the  statement  of  the  union.  As  Mr.  Lennon  has  pointed  out,  the  difference  in 
the  hours  is  very  small.  We  have  agreed  to  waive  the  charges  for  electricity; 
we  have  agreed  to  make  changes  that  will  involve  millions  of  dollars  of  differ- 
ence to  us.  I think  we  are  fairly  entitled  to  have  the  solution  of  the  grievances 
discussed  without  iiltimatum,  without  final  decisions.  The  only  remedy  or 
method  thus  far  discussed  in  this  conference  has  been  the  one  proposed,  which 
your  Honor  ruled  out  of  the  discussion,  and  the  one  suggested  by  yourself, 
which  the  manufacturers  have  been  willing  to  consider.  I apprehend,  sir, 
that  the  reason  for  terminating  this  conference  is  not  the  issue  of  wages  nor 
the  issue  of  hours,  but  the  fact  that  the  intelligent  men  at  this  table  are  not 
confident  of  their  ability  to  secure  the  approval  of  what  they  themselves  have 
been  willing  to  recognize  as  just  and  reasonable.  This  is  a great  crisis  at  this 
moment,  sir,  and  before  this  conference  breaks  up,  let  me  say  through  you  to 
the  men  on  the  other  side  of  the  table  that  they  take  upon  their  shoulders  a 
tremendous  responsibility  in  closing  this  conference  at  this  point,  and  that 
they,  will  have  to  go  not  only  to  the  American  people,  but  to  every  itradt 

129 


unionist  in  the  country  and  explain  why  this  great  opportunity  was  lost,  and 
they  will  have  to  explain  to  every  humane  person  and  every  individual  who  is 
sincerely  making  an  effort  to  raise  the  standard  in  this  country  why  they  let 
this  great  opportunity  go  by.  1 protest,  sir,  from  the  bottom  cd  my  soul, 
against  the  termination  of  this  conference  at  this  point.  1 protest,  sir,  at 
that  lack  of  courage  on  the  part  of  the  men  on  the  other  side  of  the  table  in 
not  going  to  their  people  with  what  they  know  is  right,  and  insisting  upon 
its  being  carried  into  effect. 

VOICES : No,  no. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : I want  to  say  something  here  myself.  I think,  gentle- 

men, that  there  must  be  some  misapprehension  in  several  matters  which  have 
been 

MR.  DYCHE;  We  are  being  called  demagogues  and  cowards,  and  I protest 
against  it.  I did  not  come  here  to  be  insulted  by  lawyers  or  anybody  else,  and  I 
want  my  protest  entered. 

THE  CHAIRMAN ; That  has  been  entered.  I want,  before  that  matter  is 
disposed  of,  to  say  something  in  respect  to  what  Mr.  Lennon  said,  and  which 
seemed  to  me  to  involve  some  misapprehension.  I understood  from  what  was 
said  that  it  was  the  opinion  of  Mr.  Rosenberg  and  others  on  the  committee  repre- 
senting labor,  that  they  had  no  power  to  submit  to  arbitration  the  question  of 
wages — of  differences  in  wages  or  of  what  the  hours  of  labor  should  be.  Now, 
the  differences  in  the  hours  of  labor,  I understand,  consists  simply  in  the  question 
of  whether  during  eight  months  of  the  year  the  Saturday  half  holiday  should  be 
allowed.  It  is  not  a question  of  the  hours  of  labor,  but  it  is  a question  of  a Satur- 
day half  holiday  during  a part  of  the  year. 

MR.  POLAKOFF : It  is  a question  of  four  hours  less  a week. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : No,  it  is  a question  of  four  hours  on  Saturday  afternoon 

during  eight  months  of  the  year.  Now,  the  other  question  of  the  hours  of  labor  is 
a question  of  a difference  of  about  two  dollars  a week  on  most  of  the  weekly 
rates,  one  dollar  on  some,  and  others  two  dollars  a week.  Now,  I understand  very 
properly  that  Mr.  Rosenberg  stated  that  he  had  no  power  or  this  committee  had 
no  power  to  submit  that  question  to  arbitration.  I do  not  understand  that  this 
committee  has  the  power,  from  what  Mr.  Lennon  said  at  the  outset,  or  at  least 
would  exercise  the  power  of  deciding  ultimately  anything,  but  I do  understand 
that  this  committee  has  the  power  to  discuss  the  question  of  wages,  and  I did 
understand,  when  I undertook  to  negotiate  for  a conference,  that  in  all  of  the 
matters  your  committee  stood  ready  to  enter  into  a conference.  Now,  I do  not — • 
taking  this  question  of  Jiours  and  of  wages,  while  it  might  well  be  that  you  would 
not  have  power  to  take  that  out  of  your  own  hands  and  leave  it  to  somebody  else, 
I do  not  see  but  what  you  must  have  the  power,  if  you  care  to  exercise  it,  to  dis- 
cuss that  subject.  Nobody  here — certainly  I have  not,  and  I don’t  know  whether 
anybody  else  has — I have  heard  no  remarks,  no  discussion  on  the  one  question 
which  Mr.  Lennon  says  is  important  among  the  grievances,  namely,  whether 
wages  should  be  at  a certain  rate  or  whether  a certain  average  rate,  or  whether 
there  should  be  a half  holiday  on  Saturdays  during  those  six  months  in  the  year. 
We,  therefore,  have  not  taken  up  at  all  here  that  question,  except  that  one  side 
as  to  one  proposition^  and  the  other  side  as  to  another.  I do  not  call  that  a con- 
ference. I call  that  a statement  of  demands  or  suggestions,  if  you  do  not  want  to 
call  it  demands.  Now,  that,  so  far  as  that  position  is  concerned,  IMr.  Lennon 
said  that  the  remedies  which  were  proposed  as  a means  for  enforcing  the  things  on 
which  you  had  agreed  or  might  agree,  including  wages  and  hours  of  labor — that 
those  remedies  were  insufficient.  Now,  I have  not  heard  myself  a discussion  of 
the  details.  The  only  thing  that  I have  heard  has  been  a statement  of  Mr.  Lnnon’s, 


130 


backed  up  by  reasons,  that  he  believed  the  shop  should  be  a union  shop,  meaning 
by  that  that  every  man  in  it  should  be  union ; that  is  the  only  proposition.  There 
has  been  no  consideration,  so  far  as  I can  recall,  of  any  of  these  questions  as  to 
how — whether  it  be  a union  shop  or  be  anything  else,  or  not  a union  shop,  in  the 
sense  that  Mr.  Lennon  put  it — how  you  would  proceed  to  secure  the  observance 
of  the  things  agreed  upon,  or  to  proceed  to  punish  infractions  or  to  secure  observ- 
ance of  the  various  things  agreed  upon.  I have  heard  of  nothing  in  that  regard ; 
merely  on  the  one  hand  has  been  the  statement  that  you  wanted  a union  shop,  and 
on  the  other,  perhaps  not  a statement,  but  an  implication  that  an  agreement  to 
that  effect  would  not  be  satisfactory. 

MR.  DYCHE;  I want  to  say  that  the  proposition  as  to  preference  to  union 
men,  providing  that  both  are  equal  in  skill — let  me  tell  you  that  preference  to  union 
men  has  been  given  to  men  of  superior  skill  for  a long  time.  I have  been  employed 
with  people  who  did  not  like  unionism  at  all,  but  who  employed  me  because  I was 
a man  of  superior  skill,  and  they  needed  me.  There  are  lots  of  union  men  in 
every  shop,  because  the  employer  needs  them.  So  I do  not  think  that  that  advances 
a step  forward  from  where  we  are  now. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Do  you  mean  to  say,  Mr.  Dyche,  that  there  is  no  differ- 
ence between  selecting  a man — giving  a man  a preference  because  he  is  a union 
man,  and  giving  a man  a job  if  he  is  a good  man,  although  lie  is  a union  man  ? T 
understood  the  position  you  referred  to  where  you  were  selected  was,  that  although 
you  were  a union  man,  you  were  given  the  job.  I do  not  think  that  is  at  all  sur- 
prising. I should  be  inclined  to  give  it  to  you  myself. 

MR.  ROSENBERG;  I wish  to  make  it  as  short  as  I possibly  can.  In  regard 
to  wages  there  is  not  a difference  of  a dollar  or  two  dollars,  but  on  some  parts  it 
is  a difference  of  about  five  dollars,  and  I also  wish  to  state  that  there  are  gentle- 
men here  in  this  room  who  pay  now  $2i  and  $22  a week;  not  individual  tailors, 
but  nearly  all  of  the  small  tailors  are  receiving  between  $20  and  $22  a week. 
Now,  if  this  proposition  should  be  accepted,  it  will  merely  mean  to  lower  their 
v/ages,  and  this  we  can  absolutely  not  stand. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Well,  does  it?  This  is  a minimum  wage,  and  not  a 

maximum  wage. 

MR.  ROSENBERG:  We  believe  that  a good  sample  tailor  is  just  as  good  a 
mechanic  as  a designer,  and  possibly  much  more. 

MR.  COHEN : We  are  prepared  to  discuss  all  of  those  questions.  If  there  be 
any  reasons,  we  should  be  glad  to  hear  them.  We  have  not  heard  them  up  to 
this  point,  and  the  sub-committee  declined  to  discuss  these  questions. 

MR.  ROSENBERG : The  reason  we  do  not  discuss  this  proposition  is  because 
our  time  is  absolutely  limited  on  the  conference  proposition.  We  had  our  instruc- 
tions from  our  organization — not  because  we  are  cowards  or  because  we  are  dema- 
gogues. We  are  just  as  courageous  as  any  men  in  the  world.  If  we  should  be 
cowards  we  would  not  go  to  work  and  pull  so  many  men  out  on  strike  or  cause 
them  to  be  pulled  out  or  help  them  to  go  out  on  strike,  but  we  can  in  no  wise 
discuss  the  proposition  for  the  arbitration  of  a question  which  I believe  may  be 
accepted  by  our  members,  but  as  long  as  I and  the  rest  of  us  do  not  see  our  way 
clear  how  this  will  be  accepted — the  moment  we  will  go  before  our  members,  they 
will  simply  be  astounded.  We  will  be  thrown  out  of  the  hall.  I would  like  to 
see  Mr.  Cohen  himself  go  before  the  mass  of  strikers  and  make  them  this  propo- 
sition, or  any  one  of  the  manufacturers  do  so,  or  any  one  of  our  friends  should 
go  to  work  and  do  so,  and  then  he  would  see  the  end  of  it. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : I did  not  intend  that  we  should  have  any  definite  solu- 

tion now.  What  I desired  was,  in  view  of  this  suggestion  which  I had  worked 
out  in  its  broad  outline,  I wanted  you — I mean,  not  you  individually,  but  you 


131 


and  your  associates,  and  Mr.  Cohen  with  his  clients  and  associates,  to  each  take 
this  matter  under  consideration  and  to  see  to  what  extent,  upon  calmer  considera- 
tion, with  such  light  as  you  might  get,  it  would  appear  a satisfactory  way  out  of 
this  difficulty.  I do  not  m.ean  that  either  of  you  would  have  possibly  inevitable  all 
that  you  thought  would  be  best,  but  you  would  have  what  I think  would  be  best 
for  all  of  you.  But  even  if  I were  not  right  in  that,  and  I am,  of  course,  liable 
to  be  wrong  as  well  as  any  of  the  rest  of  you,  you  would  have  something,  and  I 
want  you,  just  as  I have  asked  Mr.  Cohen  and  his  clients,  to  consider  whether 
that  did  not  offer  something  that  was  very  hopeful  as  compared  with  the  alterna- 
tive of  continuing  the  fight  with  all  the  disaster  and  suffering  that  would  be  with 
it,  and  particularly,  in  my  mind,  with  a setback  to  unionism,  as  I see  it,  which 
would  be  very  serious,  because  it  is  a step,  from  the  point  of  view  of  unionism, 
would  be,  when  you  take  it  as  a practical  matter,  a great  advantage. 

MR.  BIZNO  : I take  it  that  Mr.  Cohen  probably  does  not  quite  fathom  the 
situation. 

MR.  COHEN : Mr.  Bizno,  you  are  the  first  man  who  has  given  me  credit 

for  being  mistaken.  I did  not  say  that  anybody  on  your  side  was  a demagogue 
or  a coward.  I give  you  credit  for  possessing  great  courage.  I said  you  lacked 
courage  at  this  particular  time.  I may  lack  courage  at  some  time  myself.  I said 
you  need  courage  in  this  situation,  and  you  do,  men. 

MR.  BIZNO  : As  far  as  I know  you  have  here  sitting,  as  far  as  the  cloak  makers 
are  concerned,  a selection  of  men  that  have  had  more  experience  in  the  actual 
practices  of  unions  and  strikes  than  I can  think  of  anywhere  could  be  selected  an 
equal  number  of  men  all  over  the  United  States.  I know  Mr.  Rosenberg  in  the 
movement  for  twenty-five  years  has  made  great  sacrifices  for  the  cause  that  is  veiy- 
near  to  his  heart.  I know  Mr.  Polakoff,  I know  Dyche.  I have  been  there  for 
some  twenty-five  years.  These  conferences  are  not  new  to  me.  I have  had  similar 
conferences  over  and  over  again,  as  years  went  by.  I take  it  also  that  you  will 
agree  that  we  know  the  responsibility  that  we  are  assuming  in  asking  our  friend 
here  to  read  what  he  did  read.  We  know  that  a strike  is  war,  and  nobody  suffers 
more  than  our  own  people.  You  know  it;  we  know  it;  it  is  common  knowledge; 
no  question  about  it,  and  none  of  its  want  it.  Let  me,  Mr.  Chairman,  state  some 
of  the  reasons  why  we  have  so  decided,  and  we  will  state  the  same  right  straight — 
not  go  around — the  subject  matter  of  the  union  shops.  I do  not  believe  in  a closed 
shop ; our  union  never  did  have  what  is  really  termed  a closed  shop.  We  believe 
in  a union  shop.  A closed  shop  is  a shop  that  nobody  except  a union  man  can 
get  employment  in.  In  our  shop,  even  after  agreements  are  made  for  union  shops, 
a man  who  is  not  a member  of  the  union  comes  in,  and  he  can  get  a job.  He 
stays  there  for  some  time ; sometimes  it  takes  five  weeks  or  so  before  he  does 
become  a union  man,  so  that  we  do  make  a distinction  between  a union  shop  and 
a closed  shop.  It  has  been  our  experience,  gentlemen,  that  an  open  shop  was  a 
scab  shop,  and  we  cannot  evade  that,  and  let  me  state  to  you  the  reasons  why.  I 
have  said  this  to  Mr.  Brandeis,  and  I shall  tell  it  to  you,  that  an  open  shop  cannot 
naturally  be  a possible  union  shop,  or  even  a majority  or  even  a minority  of  men 
to  be  union  men.  Here  are  two  men  working,  suppose,  for  me.  This  man  is 
a union  man  and  this  man  is  a non-union  man.  Usually  the  union  man  has  a higher 
standard  of  living,  and  he  asks  a higher  price  for  his  labor.  This  other  man  is  a 
non-union  man ; his  standard  of  living  is  lower,  and  he  asks  for  less  money  per 
garment — for  a piece  of  work.  Now,  according  to  the 'terms  of  the  suggestion  of 
the  Chairman,  you  will  agree  to  give  preference  to  the  union  man,  namely,  you 
wall  agree  to  give  him  more  rtioney  for  the  work  and  employ  him  than  to  give 
the  non-union  man  less  money  and  employ  him. 

THE  CHAIRMAN  : Oh,  no. 


132 


MR.  COHEN : No. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : That  is  not  so. 

MR.  BIZNO : As  far  as  I can  see,  that  is  the  question.  You  will  prefer  the 
union  man.  Now  the  reason  why  a union  man  is  a union  man  at  all  is  because  his 
standard  of  living  is  higher,  and  he  is  struggling  for  a better  standard. 

THE  CHAIRMAN  : I interrupt  you  merely  because  I think  you  are  proceeding 

on  a wrong  assumption. 

MR.  BIZNO:  If  you  can  explain  it  to  me  I shall  abide  by  it. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Under  this  agreement,  as  I proposed  it,  nobody  could  get 

a lower  rate  of  wages  than  the  scale  agreed  upon. 

A VOICE  : Piece  workers  have  no  scale. 

THE  CHxA.IRMAN : Whether  we  were  dealing  with  piece  workers  or  not, 

when  we  are  fixing  prices  that  price  would  be  precisely  the  same  whether  with  a 
non-union  man  or  a union  man. 

MR.  BIZNO : The  nature  of  this  industry  is  different  than  many  other  indus- 

tries you  have  probably  looked  into.  Every  day  in  the  week  prices  for  labor  are 
being  made,  and  every  day  in  the  week  the  subject  matter  of  what  it  will  cost  is 
being  haggled  and  haggled.  That  is  the  nature  of  the  business.  A new  sample 
is  brought  down  from  upstairs,  and  the  price  is  $2.00.  The  first  man  that  takes  it 
to  work  on  feels  that  it  is  worth  $3.00.  Some  other  man — his  standard  is  not 
as  high — and  he  is  willing  to  make  it  for  $2.50  or  for  $2.25.  The  subject  matter 
is  being  discussed  among  the  men  right  then  and  there.  The  foreman  who  does 
employ  them  at  once  decides  in  his  own  mind  which  man  he  is  going  to  get  the 
best  advantage  of,  and  there  is  a union  man  and  here  is  a non-union  man,  and  he 
has  the  power  to  say  which  man  shall  get  the  bundle. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : I see  that  point,  but  I do  not  see  why  it  would  not  be 

precisely  the  same  thing  in  each  case  you  put,  if  there  were  a contest  between  two 
union  men. 

MR.  BIZNO : No.  We  believe  that  the  business  agent  of  the  union  and  the 

manufacturer  should  decide  upon  the  price  of  labor,  along  with  the  suggestions 
of  the  men,  and  then  the  manufacturer  has  no  occasion  to  discriminate  between 
the  men.  If  they  tell  Mr.  Rosenberg,  why,  here  is  No.  2540,  and  he  says  it  is 
worth  $2.50,  somebody  there  says,  if  you  want  $2.50  you  cannot  get  it ; it  is  too 
much.  Then  Rosenberg  decides  on  the  price  of  $2.00.  Upstairs  the  manager 
says  $1.80.  We  believe  that  the  bargain  for  wages  should  be  decided  through  a 
representative,  and  not  bargaining  with  each  individual  man.  The  bargaining  with 
each  individual  man  reduces  the  conditions  to  non-union,  and  you  cannot  get 
around  it. 

THE  CHAIRMAN  : That  is  another  question  entirely. 

MR.  BIZNO:  Now,  if  Rosenberg  will  go  up,  Mr.  Chairman,  and  will  be 

bargaining  for  a union  and  a non-union  man,  in  the  case  of  the  union  man  he  says 
to  him : “Do  not  hit  your  brother  below  the  belt ; do  not  reduce  the  price  so  that 

you  could  not  make  a living” ; but  a non-union  man,  he  will  not  be  able  to  say 
anything  to  him.  The  non-union  man  will  decide  on  the  price  of  the  labor  for  all 
the  rest.  IMr.  President,  our  people  have  been  suffering  in  this  town  from  the  low 
prices  of  labor  and  the  low  standards,  and  we  mean  to  improve/  that,  and  your 
suggestion,  IMr.  President,  that  we  can  improve  that  by  nice  phrases,  purely  ideal 
conceptions  of  ethics,  etc.,  has  not  been  working  well  in  the  history  of  the  trade. 
The  only  improvements  that  have  been  made  have  been  made  by  this  very  sacrifice 
that  is  now  being  maintained  in  New  York — strikes,  Mr.  President,  organizations. 
A man  will  be  better  satisfied  to  starve  than  to  work  for  wages  that  he  cannot  make 
a living  on. 

THE  CHAIRMAN  : How  long? 


133 


MR.  BIZNO : Oh,  quite  a long  time.  There  were  cases  where  some  of  our 

men  have  beeen  starving  for  fourteen  weeks,  and  I have  seen  fathers  who  per- 
mitted their  children  to  starve  to  death  rather  than  to  give  up  the  struggle.  This 
has  been  an  old  struggle.  We  haven’t  any  bad  blood,  Mr.  President. 

THE  CHAIRMAN  : I understand. 

MR.  BIZNO ; But  we  have  a hard  history. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : I do  not  think  there  is  any  bad  blood.  I think  your 
statement  and  those  of  others  have  been  most  deliberate,  and  with  the  proper 
conception  of  the  seriousness  of  the  situation.  I am  only  asking  this  for  informa- 
tion. You  have  told  me  about  experiences  in  the  past.  I should  like  to  know 
whether  there  has  been  any  instance  or  series  of  instances  in  your  twenty-five  years 
of  experience  where  you  have  had  introduced  into  the  trade  with  the  Manufac- 
turers' Association  on  the  one  hand  and  the  unions  on  the  other,  an  agreement 
by  which  the  union  should  have  preference  in  the  selection  of  employees?  Has 
there  been  any  instance,  and  if  so,  will  you  please  tell  us  by  name  the  instances 
where  such  agreements  were  entered  into. 

MR.  BIZNO:  Mr.  President,  we  have  had  for  a number  of  years  agreements 

with  the  manufacturers  of  Chicago  wherein  they  agreed  to  employ  union  men,  to 
have  union  shops ; where  the  price  for  labor  was  decided  between  the  manufacturer 
and  the  business  agent  of  the  unions,  together  with  the  consultation  of  the  men, 
where  the  thing  has  worked  for  years  without  strikes ; where  the  lot  in  life  has 
l)een  inaterially  improved,  and  where  we  have  abolished  sweatshops,  long  hours 
of  work  and  strikes. 

THE  CHAIRMAN  ; That  does  not  answer  my  question.  It  is  a very  inter- 
esting statement,  and  I am  glad  to  hear  it. 

MR.  BIZNO:  As  to  that,  we  can  get  copies  of  the  contracts;  we  cannot  bring 
the  witnesses  here. 

THE  CHAIRMAN  : I am  not  doubting.  I am  very  glad  to  hear  it,  but  the 

specific  thing  that  I asked  was  this : You  said  from  your  experience  that  what  you 

termed  open  shops,  that  you  were  convinced  that  the  preferential  plan  would  not 
work.  Now,  what  I want  to  ask  yo  uis  whether  you  know  of  any  instance  where 
the  preferential  plan  was  ever  tried  ? I merely  ask  you  that  in  order  to  see  whether 
you  speak  from  experience. 

MR.  BIZNO : Let  me  answer  that  in  another  experience.  You  remember  we 

have  had  agreements  with  some  of  the  manufacturers  by  which  we  have  agreed  that 
the  manufacturer  should  have  a certain  number  of  outside  shops ; that  everybody 
must  belong  to  the  union,  with  a certain  number  of  outside  shops  in  which  every- 
body is  not  obliged  to  belong  to  the  union.  He  can  if  he  wants  to.  That  it  is  the 
business  of  the  manufacturer  first  to  send  his  work  into  the  union  shops,  and  after 
the  union  ships  are  employed  he  may  send  his  work  to  those  shops  that  are  not  all 
union  or  partly  union. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Yes.  That  is  a very  different  thing. 

MR.  BIZNO : That  is,  in  theory,  substantially  the  same. 

THE  CHAIRMAN  : Oh,  no ; not  at  all. 

MR.  BIZNO  : That  is  in  theory  the  same,  and  it  has  not  worked  well.  It  has 

worked  very  bad. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : I should  think  it  would  work  very  badly,  because  there 

is  competition  between  union  and  non-union  shops,  but  what  I asked  was  for  any 
case  where  you  had  an  agreement  for  giving  preference  to  union  men. 

MR.  BIZNO:  Not  that  I know  of. 

THE  CHAIRMAN  : That  is  what  I thought,  that  that  had  never  been  tried 
in  the  garment  trade. 


134 


MR.  SCHLESSINGER;  Mr.  Chairman,  with  all  due  respect  to  you  and 
Mr.  Cohen,  and  also  to  Mr.  London,  and  with  all  due  respect  to  you  and  your 
profession,  I must  say  that  you  know  very  little  about  tailoring.  We  know  a good 
deal  of  how  to  conduct  strikes,  and  we  also  know  a good  deal  about  tailoring.  I 
do  not  know  if  I will  succeed  in  making  you  good  tailors  in  the  few  words  1 am 
going  to  speak  to  you,  but  I expect  to  convince  some  of  the  gentlemen  of  the  com- 
mittee here  that  I am  right  in  some  of  my  contentions,  what  I am  going  to  say 
now.  As  far  as  wages  are  concerned,  rather,  as  far  as  your  proposition  as  to  the 
wages  is  concerned,  why,  you  know  it  is  ridiculous. 

MR.  LONDON : You  do  not  address  that  to  the  Chairman? 

MR.  SCHLESSINGER:  No,  not  to  the  Chairman.  As  far  as  the  prices  are 

concerned,  we  demand  $24.00  a week  for  sample  tailors.  They  are  getting  $22.00 
a week,  and  in  a very  few  shops,  I must  confess,  $23.00  a week,  and  you  offer  us 
$19.00  a week,  so  of  course,  you  will  admit  it  is  ridiculous.  We  will  certainly  not 
accept  $19.00  a week  when  we  have  been  getting  $22.00,  and  when  we  are  getting, 
although  in  a few  shops,  $23.00  a week. 

MR.  COHEN : May  I ask  you  a question? 

MR.  SCHLESSINGER:  Oh,  my.  Then  I would  not  make  a speech  then. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : You  have  the  floor. 

MR.  SCHLESSINGER : Go  ahead.  ' 

MR.  COHEN : I am  concerned  with  getting  practical  results.  Now,  as  the 

Chairman  has  very  well  pointed  ouj;,  you  made  a proposition  as  to  wages.  We 
made  a proposition.  Yours  is  the  first  attempt  to  discuss  these  questions  of  wages. 
Now,  I think  that  a discussion  of  wages  of  that  sort  can  better  be  had  in  a sub- 
committee than  in  this  large  gathering.  Now,  it  is  not  fair  to  say  that  our  propo- 
sition is  ridiculous ; that  does  not  answer  the  question.  We  can  say  the  same  thing 
of  yours,  but  we  are  prepared,  Mr.  Scblessinger,  in  the  event  that  the  sub- 
committee cannot  agree,  to  submit  the  entire  question  of  wages  to  arbitration  and 
to  select,  if  you  do  not  want  Mr.  Brandeis,  some  one  else.  Now,  why  not  adjourn 
this  conference  until  that  can  be  done,  and  present  all  of  the  arguments  that  ought 
to  be  presented,  that  you  think  are  in  favor  of  your  proposition,  but  do  not  do  it 
as  an  ultimatum  to  which  we  must  either  accede  or  the  conference  must  break  up? 
That  is  not  a conference,  Mr.  Schlessinger. 

MR.  SCHLESSINGER:  Your  j^roposition,  as  far  as  wages  is  concerned — 
your  wage  scale,  we  cannot  consider  it  at  all. 

MR.  COHEN  : All  right. 

MR.  SCHLESSINGER:  We  ask  for  $24.00  a week.  That  is,  we  have  taken 
the  maximum  that  was  paid  in  the  line  of  sample  tailoring,  and  we  wanted  to  raise 
$i.ooi  on  it.  You  have  taken  the  minimum,  that  is  $22.00  a week,  or  possibly 
$21.00  a week,  and  you  offer  us  less  here  than  the  minimum.  Don’t  you  consider 
that  ridiculous? 

MR.  COHEN : There  are  fourteen  classifications  in  your  list.  Now 

MR.  SCHLESSINGER:  I am  speaking  of  the  sample  tailor.  I ask  you  if  it 

is  not  ridiculous  to  offer  us  $19.00  a week  for  such  work  as  we  have  been  getting 
$23.00? 

THE  CHAIRMAN  : Let  me  ask  you  one  question  before  he  answers  that. 

Do  you  mean  to  say  that  there  is  nobody  in  the  trades  who  to-day  is  paying  less 
than  $19.00?  Is  that  what  your  statement  is? 

MR.  FISHMAN : May  I say,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  I pay  $15.00  a week. 

]\IR.  POLAKOFF : It  is  a shame,  if  he  pays  $15.00  a week. 

MR  SCHLESSINGER:  Mr.  Fishman  is  perfectly  right.  I believe  be  pays 

$15.00  a wee.k  I know  a cloak  factory  in  New  York  where  15  cents  is  paid  for 


135 


two  duck  jackets  to  operate,  and  I am  sure  there  is  not  a man  here  in  this  room 
that  will  pay  such  a low  price  as  that. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : What  I want  to  know  is  this : Now  you  made  the 

statement  that  $19.00  was  $2.00  less  than  was  being  paid,  and  therefore  it  was 
absurd  to  consider  $19.00.  Now,  what  I wanted  to  know  was  whether  that  was 
$2.00  less  than  one  man  or  two  men  or  ten  men  or  a hundred  men  were  paying, 
or  whether  that  was  the  least  that  was  being  paid  in  the  trade,  and  whether  you 
could  tell  us  how  many  men  were  paying  one  price  and  how  many  another. 

MR.  SCHLESSINGER ; 1 should  say  that  about  seventy  per  cent,  of  the 

sample  makers  in  New  York  are  getting  on  an  average  of  $21.00  a week — seventy 
per  cent,  of  them. 

MR.  COHEN:  I will  let  you  get  your  speech  off  afterwards,  but  first  of 

all  answ^er  some  questions.  You  want  to  be  fair  about  this  thing,  don’t  you? 

THE  CHAIRMAN : He  certainly  does.  There  is  no  question  about  that. 

MR.  COHEN:  Nowq  if  you  are  right  that  the  average  price  at  present  is 

so  much — what  did  you  say  it  was? 

A VOICE:  $21.00. 

MR.  COHEN : Then  I accept  your  statement  that  the  offer  of  $19.00  is 

not  an  advantage  to  you. 

MR.  SCHLESSINGER:  I want  you  to  admit  it  is  ridiculous.' 

MR.  COHEN : Never  mind  whether  it  is  ridiculous  or  not.  Ridiculous  is 

a big  word. 

MR.  SCHLESSINGER:  You  used  very  big  words  this  afternoon. 

MR.  COHEN:  No,  I didn’t  use  anything  offensive.  You  are  too  sensi- 

tive, that  is  the  trouble  with  you.  Our  people  on  our  side  of  the  table  say 
that  you  are  mistaken  in  your  statement  of  facts.  They  do  not  say  you  are 
deliberately  misrepresenting.  They  ought  to  know  what  they  are  talking 
about.  When  we  have  a dispute  about  a question  of  fact  w^e  do  not  break  up 
a conference  on  account  of  it,  but  w'e  try  to  find  out  what  the  facts  are.  If 
the  facts  are  as  you  say,  it  should  be  easy  to  prove  them,  and  we  are  willing 
to  go  before  any  unbiased  tribunal  and  let  you  prove  your  facts,  and  I assure 
you  that  if  you  prove  them  to  be  facts  I will  be  the  first  one  to  urge  the 
adoption  of  the  scale  that  you  want.  Further  than  that,  you  can  have  our 
own  books,  if  you  please,  for  the  purpose  of.  proving  what  our  people  pay 
sample  makers,  and  we  will  give  you  the  accountants  and  pay  for  the  ac- 
countants for  the  purpose  of  showing  statistically 

MR.  SCHLESSINGER:  What  is  the  use  of  that? 

MR.  COHEN : Because  we  are  here  as  fair  men. 

MR.  SCHLESSINGER:  But  really  the  speechmaking  here  would  not 
amount  to  anything.  I would  be  only  too  glad  if  Mr.  Jonasson  or  any  other 
gentleman  here  would  ask  me  this.  I was  glad  to  hear  something  about  Mr. 
Fishman.  After  all,  I cannot  undertake  to  learn  you  about  the  business.  You 
start  off  as  a lawyer,  asking  questions,  and  I cannot  stand  it  really.  There 
are  manufacturers  in  this  room,  Mr.  Cohen,  that  are  paying  $22.00  and  $23.00 
a week  for  sample  makers,  and  I do  not  want  to  take  you  to  manufacturers 
who  are  paying  15  cents  for  two  garments.  You  know  what  I mean  by  that. 
I do  not  want  to  take  you  to  manufacturers  that  are  paying  below  the  living 
scale — that  are  not  paying  a living  wage.  I rather  take  you  to  manufacturers 
that  are  in  this  room  that  are  paying  $22.00  and  $23,000  to  sample  hands. 

A VOICE:  Will  you  take  the  average  of  manufacturers  in  this  room? 

MR.  SCHLESSINGER:  I don’t  know. 

MR.  COHEN:  Will  }'ou  try  it? 


136 


MR.  SCHLESSINGER:  No,  I don’t  want  to.  I was  requested  not  to 

mention  names. 

MR.  COHEN:  But  they  are  willing  now. 

MR.  SCHLESSINGER:  But  I am  not  willing  now. 

MR.  COHEN:  ,Why? 

MR.  SCHLESSINGER:  Because  I do  not  want  to.  I do  not  consider 

this  a court.  We  are  in  a room  in  the  Metropolitan  Life  Building,  with  a 
committee  of  the  Manufacturers’  Association,  people  engaged  in  making 
cloaks  and  people  of  the  union — a union  composed  of  the  people  making  the 
cloaks,  and  we  are  discussing  certain  regulations  of  the  trade — how  to  regu- 
late the  trade,  etc.,  so  I do  not  want  to  discuss  your  wage  proposition,  as  I 
really  think  he  was  not  in  earnest  about  it  and  did  not  know  much  about  it. 

I will  not  take  that  up  now.  I will  leave  that  for  others.  I want  to  say  a 
few  words  about  the  kind  of  shops  you  would  like  us  to  work  in,  and  I want 
to  show  you  that  it  will  not  work  to  your  advantage,  as  it  will  not  work  to  our 
advantage.  I would  not  say  that  a shop  like  the  one  you  suggest  will  work  to 
the  breaking  up  of  our  union;  I would  not  say  that,  because  I have  seen  unions 
under  much  worse  circumstances — rather  in  shops  with  much  worse  condi- 
tions, but  I claim  it  would  work  to  the  detriment  of  your  business.  It  would 
break  up  the  business  of  a good  many  manufacturers  in  this  room,  and  I will 
show  you  why.  Now,  you  agree  that  in  order  to  regulate  the  trade  in  order 
to  abolish  unfair  competition  that  there  must  be  co-operation  between  the 
manufacturers  and  also  the  union.  That  is,  they  must  work  to  a certain  ex- 
tent hand  in  hand.  We,  for  instance,  are  to  see  that  our  people  do  not  work 
for  lower  wages  in  other  shops  than  they  are  getting  in  your  place,  and  you, 
of  course,  are  to  assist  as  and  see  that  we  are  able  to  carry  through  our  point. 
Now,  for  instance,  if  we  go  to  work  under  the  conditions  that  you  propose 
to  us,  to  work  with  non-union  mxcn — now,  say  we  will  take  Mr.  A,  has  a shop, 
and  he  has  six  union  men  working  in  this  place  and  four  non-union  men.  Now,  of 
course,  you  will  have  to  pay  the  non-union  men  the  very  same  prices  and  you 
will  have  to  give  them  the  very  same  conditions  that  you  are  giving  the  union 
men.  If  not,  of  course, he  will  join  the  union,  and  then  you  will  have  to 
pay  him,  and  there  is  no  doubt  about  it,  and  I am  quite  sure  that  the  manu- 
facturers will  not  try  to  take  any  advantage  of  the  non-union  man.  As  a 
matter  of  fact  I rather  believe  they  will  try  to  take  advantage  of  the  union 
man.  This  is  human  nature.  If  I had  been  a manufacturer  I would  have 
done  the  same  thing — don’t  put  that  in.  I am  not  criticising  you.  You  will 
certainly  see  that  a non-union  man  gets  the  very  same  wages  that  a union 
man  gets,  so  what  will  be  the  result  ? The  union  man  will  see  that  there  is  a 
non-union  man  working  in  the  same  shop  where  he  works,  men  that  do  not 
pay  any  dues  in  the  organization  and  gets  the  very  same  conditions  and  gets 
the  same  prices  that  a union  man  gets;  then,  of  course,  he  will  decide  also  to 
drop  the  organization.  You  understand  me,  don’t  you?  That  the  union  man 
will  see  that  the  non-union  man  gets  the  very  same  conditions  and  very  same 
prices  for  his  labor  that  a union  man  gets;  then  the  union  man  will  decide  also 
to  drop  out  of  the  organization,  and  as  a matter  of  fact  the  manufacturer  will 
encourage  him.  He  is  only  looking  for  such  a thing.  As  soon  as  our  mem- 
bers have  deserted  us,  then  it  is  absolutely  impossible  for  us  to  control  the 
trade  or  equalize  conditions.  If  the  members  of  our  union  desert  the  union 
in  your  shops,  they  will  desert  the  union  in  other  shops,  consequently  the  same 
unfair  competition  that  has  been  going  on  until  now  will  be  going  on  in  the 
future. 


13,7 


MR.  COHEN:  Just  to  make  me  clear  on  the  subject,  you  say  that  the 
sane  way  to  carry  out  the  reforms  that  we  have  been  discussing  here  is  by 
employing  none  but  union  men  in  our  shops? 

MR.  SCHLESSINGER:  I will  come  to  it.  I did  not  say  it  yet.  I am  go- 

ing to  say  it  now.  I say  the  only  remedy  for  the  manufacturers  is  to  employ 
none  but  union  men,  as  long  as  the  union  is  able  to  supply  you  with  help. 
Should  it  be  impossible  for  the  union  to  supply  you  with  help — the  union  not 
have  as  many  members  as  you  are  able  to  employ,  then  you  should  have  the 
privilege  to  employ  whoever  you  please. 

MR.  LONDON:  You  mean  competent  men  at  the  work? 

MR  SCHLESSINGER:  Competent  men,  yes;  that  is  understood.  We  are 

talking  of  mechanics. 

MR.  COHEN : That  is  the  Chairman’s  proposition. 

MR.  SCHLESSINGER:  If  that  is  so,  all  right.  I will  put  it  as  my  propo- 
sition. I want  to  get  the  credit  for  it,  with  your  consent,  Mr.  Chairman. 
My  proposition  is  that  the  manufacturers  do  not  employ  none  others  than 
members  of  the  organization  as  long  as  the  union  is  able  to  supply  them  with 
as  much  help  as  they  need.  There  is  no  reason  why  you  should  not,  as  long 
as  you  will  agree  on  prices  and  on  all  regulations  in  the  shops — then  I really 
do  not  see  why  you  should  not  employ  only  union  men.  Now,  you  know, 
Mr.  Lefcourt,  that  if  }^ou  will  have  sixty  union  men  in  your  shop  and  forty 
non-union  men,  that  there  will  be  a continuous  quarrel  among  the  people 
there;  either  the  union  men  will  drive  the  non-union  men  out  or  the  non-union 
men  will  drive  the  union  men  out,  but  before  one  party  will  drive  out  the 
other  you  will  not  be  able  to  make  your  work. 

MR.  LONDON:  You  will  be  driven  out  of  business. 

MR.  SCHLESSINGER:  I will  not  say  that.  I do  not  want  to  threaten 
them.  I know  the  petiple  in  the  shops.  I worked  17  years  in  the  shops  as 
an  operator.  That  is  fhe  reason  I say  I am  able  to  talk  to  you  on  this  ques- 
tion. I can  give  you  some  information  on  this  question  that  you  probably 
do  not  know,  because  you  have  foremen  and  you  are  not  familiar  with  every- 
thing that  goes  on  in  the  shops.  The  employment  of  union  men  only  is  the 
only  proposition  that  can  be  accepted  by  our  organization.  Should  we  accept 
your  proposition  that  is.  having  non-union  men  working  hand  in  hand  with 
us,  then  we  will  lose  our  organization,  as  every  organization  has  lost  that  went 
into  deals  like  you  are  trying  to  make  us  go  into.  So  I therefore  say  that  I 
do  not  think  it  will  be  possible  for  me  to  make  such  a strong  appeal  as  IMr. 
Cohen,  but  I expect  Mr.  London  to  do  it,  because  I consider  this  present  min- 
ute a very  serious  one.  I tell  you  manufacturers  to  consider  it.  We  will  keep 
up  this  strike,  whether  we  like  it  or  not;  whether  it  will  do  us  good  or  not. 
We  haveTo;  we  will.  Not  because  we  are  cowards,  Mr.  Cohen 

MR.  COHEN:  Just  a moment.  Let  me  set  you  right.  My  point  was 
simply  this,  and  I want  all  of  you  gentlemen  to  understand  it.  I have  learned 
to  entertain  a high  respect  for  the  men  who  sit  around  this  table,  but  you  are 
dealing  with  a crisis  with  your  own  people  which  requires  tremendous  cour- 
age on  your  part,  and  it  did  not  seem  to  me  that  by  asking  for  a termination 
of  this  conference  that  vou  were  quite  measuring  up  to  the  standard  of  courage 
that  the  situation  requires.  That  is  my  only  criticism. 

MR.  SCHLESSINGER:  The  very  same  thing  can  also  be  said  about  your 

manufacturers.  You  have  in  New  York  about  1,200  or  1,300  manufacturers. 
You  haven’t  all  of  them  in  your  union.  By  reason  of  them  not  being  in  your 
union  or  your  association  it  is  also  the  case  that  you  cannot  control  them. 
Now,  this  minute  is  a very  serious  one,  I admit.  If  we  do  not  agree  now,  of 


138 


course,  we  will  have  to  keep  up  the  strike,  and  we  cannot  tell  how  long.  We 
will  have  to  strike.  We  cannot  tell  how  long  it  will  take  us  to  make  you 
people  come  to  our  terms,  or  we  cannot  tell  how  long  it  will  take  you  people 
to  make  us  come  to  your  terms,  but  let  me  tell  you,  as  sure  as  I am  born,  that 
if  our  union  fails  in  its  present  effort,  then  it  would  not  take  very  long  before  a 
good  many  of  the  very  small  ones  will  drive  you  people  out  of  business,  as 
they  did  drive  out  a good  many  large  manufacturers  out  of  business  i6  years 
ago  when  we  had  that  strike.  At  that  time,  gentlemen,  we  also  lost  our 
strike.  Some  of  you  remember  it.  At  that  time  Mr.  Jonasson — not  this  Mr. 
Jonasson — a good  many  others  were  driven  out  of  business.  We  lost  that 
strike,  but  the  result  was  nevertheless  that  the  manufacturers  had  lost.  Most 
of  the  people  that  were  striking  against  you  then  and  have  lost  that  strike 
are  manufacturers  to-day.  I would  not  be  surprised  if  you  would  tell  me  that 
some  of  the  people  here  who  are  manufacturers  now,  conferring  here,,  were 
strikers  in  1894.  We  are  certainly  going  to  keep  it  up  and  make  such  a 
fight  as  we  never  made  before.  I do  not  want  to  appeal  to  you,  because  I 
do  not  think  an  appeal  will  help,  birt  I simply  want  to  appeal  to  your  senses 
as  business  men.  Do  not  lose  your  birsiness.  You  have  worked  hard  to 
work  it  up.  There  are  people  just  waiting  for  it.  They  are  just  waiting  that 
this  strike  should  be  prolonged.  Judging  by  past  experiences^  and  you  know 
that  what  I tell  you  is  absolutely  so,  and  if  you  have  not  considered  tliese 
things  yet — that  is,  if  you  have  never  talked  over  the  things  that  have  hap- 
pened in  our  trade,  it  would  be  worth  while  for  you  to  do  it  now  before  we 
leave  this  room.  If  we  leave  this  room  now,  it  means  that  the  strike  will  go 
on.  Mr.  Cohen  and  Mr.  London  and  Mr.  Brandeis  are  attorneys.  They  all 
did  the  best  they  could  in  this  matter,  but  it  is  up  to  you  manufacturers  to 
do  the  right  thing.  Mr.  Cohen  thinks  it  is  possible  for  union  men  to  work 
alongside  of  non-union  men,  but  you  know  it  is  impossible.  You  know  you 
will  have  fights  in  your  shops.  I simply  want  you  to  consider  it  and  act  fairly, 
that  you  will  come  into  the  proposition  as  I have  stated  it,  that  none  others 
but  union  men  be  permitted  to  work  in  your  shops,  as  long  as  the  union  is 
able  to  supply  you  with  competent  help. 

THE  CHAIRMAN;  Equally  competent  help. 

MR.  SCHLESSINGER:  Yes,  equally  competent  help.  When  the  union 
cannot  supply  you  with  help,  of  course  you  can  employ  whoever  you  please. 
That  is  my  proposition — my  sincere  proposition. 

MR.  BLOCH;  I will  not  possibly  take  up  half  the  time  that  Mr.  Schles- 
singer  did,  and  I am  not  going  to  criticise  our  friend  Mr.  Cohen  there.  I 
want  to  say  this.  At  the  outset  of  this  conference  I understood  that  the  con- 
ference was  to  bring  about  some  amicable  understanding  in  regard  to  equaliz- 
ing conditions,  and  the  question  before  us  now  is  the  method  of  enforcing 
any  agreement  that  may  be  reached  at  this  conference.  I further  want  to 
say,  Mr.  Chairman;  that  I believe  that  the  outcome  of  this  conference  will  be 
the  standard  that  will  be  established  among  our  trade,  amongst  employers 
and  employees  both.  We  realize  that  the  employment  of  non-union  men  in 
the  shops  will  naturally  be  the  unfair  competition  that  we  have  had  to  con- 
tend with,  for  this  reason.  A non-union  man  will  work  in  the  shops  of  you 
gentlemen  here,  and  when  the  season  is  over  and  they  are  laid  off  they  will  go 
down  to  other  shops  that  are  not  in  your  association  or  under  our  control, 
and  possibly  work  under  the  unfair  conditions  we  are  trying  to  prevent — less 
money,  longer  hours  and  so  on.  If  they  are  union  men  and  in  your  emplo)' 
we  can  naturally  control  them  and  prevent  them  from  working  for  these  other 
people  under  unfair  conditions.  Of  course,  we  understand  that  the  stand 


139 


that  you  gentlemen  have  taken  is  one  you  believe  is  principle  with  you.  I do 
not  agree  with  you  on  that  either.  That  you  believe  that  by  recognizing  the 
union  demands,  that  ad  union  men  be  employed  in  your  establishment,  would 
mean  the  control  of  your  shops  by  the  union.  Now,  we  have  promised  you, 
and  I am  ready  to  promise  you,  that  it  does  not  mean  anything  of  the  kind.  I 
know  that  the  mere  fact  that  unionism  at  times  seems  to  some  employers  a 
little  bit  unwise  to  adopt  in  their  factories,  such  a thing  as  unionizing  their 
entire  plant — still  I believe  that  in  bringing  about  an  equalization  of  conditions 
we  have  got  to  control  the  employees,  and  the  only  way  they  can  possibly  be 
controlled  is  through  their  organizations,  properly  by  discipline  and  so  on. 
I believe,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  to  carry  out  any  agreement  that  may  be  reached 
at  this  conference,  and  carry  it  out  honestly,  because  it  would  be  ridiculous  on 
our  part  to  say  that  we  were  going  to  attempt  to  carry  out  something  that  we 
know  at  the  outset  that  we  cannot  carry  out — that  the  only  proper  course 
to  pursue  in  that  instance  would  be  for  the  Manufacturers’  Association  to 
adopt  suitable  amendments  or  declarations  empowering  them  to  employ  union 
men  solely  in  their  shops. 

THE  CAHIRMAN:.  I do  not  know  just  what  you  have  definitely  in  mind, 
but  you  are,  of  course,  aware  that  the  closed  shop  cannot  be  discussed  here. 

MR.  BLOCH:  We  are  not  discussing  the  closed  or  open  shop  at  this-time. 

A VOICE:  I would  like  to  know  what  else  is  being  done. 

MR.  BLOCH:  A union  shop  is  not  a closed  shop  in  my  opinion.  I be- 
lieve it  is  for  the  the  protection  of  the  manufacturers,  as  well  as  for  the  mem- 
bers of  our  union  themselves  to  have  men  in  their  employ  who  are  controlled 
and  disciplined  by  their  organizations. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Mr.  London,  I think  you  had  something  to  saV. 

MR.  LONDON:  I desire  to  say,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  I realize  the  im- 

portance of  the  questions  which  we  are  discussing — which  we  have  been  dis- 
cussing for  the  last  three  days,  and  I share  with  Mr.  Cohen  the  sentiments 
that  we  have  approached  a crisis.  I think  that  if  the  employers  will  realize 
the  situation  as  it  is,  [hey  will  not  ask  of  us  the  impossibility;  that  they  will 
take  our  men  as  they  are.  We  are  not  responsible  for  them.  We  cannot 
change  them.  To  some  extent  we  say  that  some  of  the  employers  have  some 
blame  for  the  conditions — for  the  physical,  moral  and  intellectual  conditions 
of  some  of  our  people.  We  are  not  responsible  for  the  low  conditions  in 
which  some  of  the  people  in  the  trade  are  to-day.  We  are  trying  to  improve 
these  conditions.  Nov/,  if  you  were  to  consent  to  employ  union  men  as  long 
as  you  can  get  competent  union  men,  why,  then,  the  question  is  settled.  That 
is  all  there  is  to  it.  There  is  no  use  appealing.  You  are  not  a crowd  of  t>ld 
women  who  can  be  appealed  to  by  a sermon.  It  is  a question  of  reasoning  the 
thing  out.  Now,  let  us  try  to  reason  the  thing  out.  We  have  60,000  men  or 
perhaps  men  and  women  on  strike.  They  are  on  strike  because  they  feel 
there  is  something  wrong;  they  want  some  change;  some  of  them  joined  the  union 
two  months  before  the  strike  was  called,  some  of  them  three  months  before  the 
strike  was  called,  some  of  them  were  so  calculating  in  their  unionism  that  they 
paid  the  initiation  fee  in  order  to  go  on  strike  and  in  order  to  get  immediate  benefit 
for  the  dollar  or  three  dollars  that  they  paid  in.  We  have  practical  people  among 
us.  Now  you  have  to  take  those  men  and  women  as  they  are.  The  labor  leader 
has  not  yet  been  born  who  can  take  this  mass  and  discipline  it  and  tell  to  this  mass 
“you  must  act  according  to  this  line,  according  to  these  directions,  according  to  the 
suggestion  I make  to  you  at  this  moment.” 

You  cannot  do  it  in  twenty-four  hours;  you  cannot  do  it  in  forty-eight 
hours.  These  men  say  that  they  understand  the  words  “union  shop,”  and  let 


140 


me  tell  you  an  incident  which  is  as  tragical  as  it  is  humorous,  when  they  use 
the  expression  "recognition  of  the  union,”  which  to  the  ; American  trade 
unionist  means  the  negotiating  with  the  officers  of  the  union — when  they 
speak  of  the  recognition  of  the  union,  they  mean  absolutely  the  closed  shop. 
Now,  we  speak  to  them  of  the  union  shops,  and  realize  that  you  should  have 
the  right  to  employ  non-union  men  when  it  is  impossible  for  you  to  get  com- 
petent union  help.  Be  practicable;  be  sensible. 

THE  CHAIRJMAN : You  mean  “equally  eompetent”  individuals?  You 

may  get  them  competent,  yet  there  may  be  a great  difference  in  their  com- 
petency. 

MR.  LONDON : I bow  with  reverence  to  your  great  command  of  the 
English  language,  but  the  difficulty  is  this : If  you  will  attempt  to  draw  fine 
distinctions  in  any  paper  you  will  submit  to  our  people,  the  more  refined  is 
the  distinction  the  less  will  they  understand  it,  and  think  they  will  be  deceived, 
and  therefore  I ask  you  to  strike  out  the  word  “equally.” 

THE  CHAIRM  AN : No.  It  is  a question  of  using  language  which  you 

and  I and  Mr.  Cohen  and  twenty  other  gentlemqn  here  who  are  patiently 
listening  to  us  can  understand.  I can  perfectly  well  conceive  that  you  may 
have  ten  or  fifteen  or  twenty  persons,  all  of  whom  are  declared  competent, 
and  yet  if  I had  to  choose  a tailor  or  a lawyer  or  a physician,  I would  be  able 
to  draw  a distinction  between  the  competency  of  the  one  and  the  competency 
of  the  otheir.  Now,  the  variation  might  not  be  as  great  in  tailors  as  it  would 
be  in  physicians,  but  there  must  be  the  liberty  of  choice  of  the  men  to  select 
the  best  they  can  get.  Otherwise  the  trade  cannot  advance. 

MR.  LONDON;  I should  say  in  reply  that  the  word  “competency”  will 
necessarily  mean  that.  It  will  mean  that  the  employer  is  at  liberty  to^  employ 
a non-union  man  as  long  as  the  union  is  unable  to  furnish  him  with  a man 
competent  to  do  the  work  required.  As  soon  as  you  put  in  the  word 
“equally”  you  introduce  two  elements ; you  introduce  the  non-union  man 
along  with  the  union  man.  You  have  to  take  our  people  as  they  are.  Because 
our  people  have  not  been  as  well  organized  as  they  should  have  been,  you 
should  not  declare  in  favor  of  continuing  the  strike.  It  is  up  to  you.  You  are 
the  strike  leaders  to-day.  You  are  the  organizers  and  the  agitators.  Mr. 
Jonasson,  do  you  like  that  part?  Do  you  want  60,000  men  to  stay  out  for 
five  or  six  weeks?  I know  they  have  been  used  to  staving,  but  still  there  is  a 
limit.  They  have  become  accustomed  to  privation  and  starving.  They  may 
not  endure  very  long;  they  may  endure  four  or  five  or  six  weeks.  Imagine 
the  results.  What  will  be  the  effect  upon  the  trade?  We  have  jus't  now 
settled  with  450  manufacturers — some  substantial  ones  and  quite  a number  of 
small  manufacturers.  If  the  union  exists  we  will,  in  these  450  factories,  in 
which  the  conditions  have  been  more  or  less  disgraceful,  improve  things. 

MR.  FISHMAN : I want  to  say  this,  that  those  manufacturers,  some  of 

them  which  signed,  will  not  live  up  to  the  union  agreement. 

MR.  LONDON:  If  the  union  will  live  we  will  make  every  reasonable 

effort  in  the  world  that  the  manufacturers  with  whom  we  have  settled  should 
live  up  to  the  standard.  As  you  see,  we  have  been  reasonable.  When  you 
came  in  with  a proposition  to  abolish  electricity  and  to  install  electricity,  we 
said:  “We  will  give  you  to  the  ist  of  December,  so  that  the  season  may 
expire” — the  best  time.  Some  of  our  men  may  consider  that  to  some  extent  a 
defeat ; one  of  our  most  important  demands.  I ask  you  to  be  reasonable.  I 
ask  you  not  to  continue  the  strike.  I ask  you  in  the  name  of  the  450  manu- 
facturers with  whom  we  have  settled  and  the  800  manufacturers  outside  of 


141 


your  association,  to  consider  this  situation  again — for  your  sakes,  for  Mr. 
Brandeis’  sake,  and  for  everybody  else. 

MR.  DYCHE:  Mr.  Chairman,  the  reason  why  I cannot  admit  that  the 

plan  suggested  by  the  Chairman — the  preferential  plan — will  be  one  that  will 
maintain  our  organization  and  enable  us  to  keep  up  the  conditions  for  which 
we  are  struggling  is  this — is  based  on  experience  and  not  theory.  I have  had 
experience  with  union  shops  and  non-union  shops  for  a numbet  of  years. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Let  me  ask  you  whether  you  ever  had  any  experience 

with  a shop  in  which  preference  was  given  along  the  lines  which  you  have 
suggested? 

MR.  DYCHE:  No. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  You  never  had? 

MR.  DYCHE:  No.  But  I will  tell  you  what  I do  know,  and  that  is  this: 

That  the  same  as  a bad  coin  drives  a good  coin  out  of  the  market,  so  does 
non-union  men  drive  union  men  out  of  the  shop.  I have  seen  it  as  soon  as 
noti-union  labor  has  been  introduced  in  a union  shop,  that  there  has  been  a 
stampede  took  place. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Not  where  there  was  an  agreement  that  the  union 

men  should  have  preference,  was  it? 

MR.  DYCHE:  Yes,  it  was  an  greement  that  union  men  should  be  solely 

employed. 

THE  CHAIRMAN  : Not  preferentially? 

MR.  DYCHE:  Not  preferentially,  but  on  this  basis.  The  fact  is  this: 

With  those  two  elements,  it  is  not  a question  of  how  the  arrangement  has  been 
drawn.  I have  found  this,  and  I have  told  my  people  that  the  question  is  very 
often  not  how  the  agreement  had  been  drawn  up,  but  the  question  of  the 
temperament  and  disposition  of  the  people  we  have  to  deal  with.  No  amount 
of  agreements  or  no  document,  however  finely  devised,  will  change  at  once — it 
may  in  time,  but  not  now — the  nature  of  our  people.  As  I tell  you,  a stampede 
took  place,  and  either  the  men  would  leave  the  union  or  the  union  would  leave 
the  shop,  and  a week  or  two  passed  and  the  shop  turned  non-union.  For  the 
sake  of  self-protection  you  would  be  committing  suicide  to  go  into  an  agree- 
ment where  such  a condition  prevailed.  Give  us  a chance  for  a half  a year, 
and  let  us  see  if  we  can  make,  good. 

THjE  CHAIRMAN : That  is  what  ive  say. 

MR.  DYCHE:  But  I have  no  faith  in  it,  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : I have  no  faith  in  yours. 

MR.  DYCHE:  It  is  something  too  new.  It  cannot  be  done  at  this  crisis. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Mr.  Greenberger  says  that  he  is  ready  to  proceed 

with  his  remarks,  and  we  are  anxious  to  hear  them. 

MR.  GREENBERGER:  I am  satisfied  for  Mr.  London  to  address  you. 

MR.  LONDON : If  the  other  side  is  willing  to  adjourn  and  come  together 

to-night,  why,  I think  we  shall  continue  the  conference ; at  least,  I w’ould 
advise  my  side  so  to  do. 

THE  CHAIRMx\N : At  what  hour  would  you  suggest?  It  is  now  twenty 
minutes  past  six. 

MR.  LONDON : One  of  the  important  reasons  for  our  anxiety  to  end 

the  conference  is  that  with  the  continuing  of  this  conference  we  lose  oppor- 
tunity of  sending  daily  from  1,500  to  1,200  people  back  to  work.  Settlements 
have  been  proceeding  along  these  lines,  along  union  lines.  We  had  ^rom 
sixty  to  seventy-five  settlements  a day.  Now,  since  this  conference  has  been 
made  public  the  number  of  settlements  fell  off,  and  a number  of  employers 
told  us  frankly  that  they  were  awaiting  the  result  of  this  conference.  Under 


142 


the  circumstances  it  becomes  unjust  to  the  men  who  are  in  a position  to  return 
to  work  under  union  conditions  to  continue  this  conference  indefinitely,  and 
that  is  why  I would  ask  the  gentlemen  on  the  other  side  of  the  table  to  work 
overtime  in  the  month  of  August  or  July  to-night. 

A VOICE:  That  is  against  union  principles. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : I want  to  make  this  suggestion  before  that  question 

is  considered.  We  have  been  in  continuous  session  here  since  ten  o’clock  this 
morning,  without  even  the  usual  recess  for  luncheon. 

MR.  SCHLE.SSLNQER  : Oh,  we  had  lunch. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : We  had  lunch,  but  the  others  were  working  while 
one  man  was  eating,  and  I tliink  most  of  the  gentlemen,  including  your  own 
delegates,  were  working  before  our  conference  began,  and  were  working  late 
last  night  and  into  the  morning,  many  of  you.  Now,  the  o,ne  thing  that  all  of 
us  need  in  the  consideration  of  what  is  the  most  important  question  in  the 
lives  of  all  of  these  men,  and  all  trade  unionism  generally,  is  to  deal  with  the 
subject  calmly,  with  the  best  judgment  that  we  can  get,  and  I think  that  it  is 
in  a way  dangerous  to  proceed  with  the  decision  of  a very  important  question 
when  so  many  men  are  probably  exhausted  by  the  consideration  they  have 
been  giving  to  it.  I feel  quite  sure  that  Mr.  Cohen  and  you  and  I,  who  are 
more  accustomed  to  matters  of  this  kind  and  to  heavy  drafts  upon  us  for  such 
consideration,  than  other  gentlemen,  the  manufacturers  particularly — would 
be  better  able  to  stand  the  strain  than  others,  and  I personally  am  entirely 
ready  to  meet  at  any  tiiue  for  a further  conference,  but  I do  not  think  it  is 
wise  that  we  should  do  it,  and  I think  these  incidental  disadvantages  of  which 
you  have  spoken,  and  I have  no  doubt  that  the  manufacturers  have  disadvan- 
tages that  they  could  call  attention  to,  equally  serious  from  their  standpoint — 
I think  they  ought  to  yield  to  the  better  judgment  and  not  try  to  cut  off  a 
conference  when  there  is  hope  and  as  long  as  there  is  hope  for  consideration. 
Now,  I do  not  want  to  drag  it  on.  I am  perhaps  the  last  person  who  should 
want  to  drag  it  on,  but  I think  we  ought  to  consider  it  wihen  we  are  calm 
and  when  we  have  our  best  wits  about  us  that  we  are  capable  of. 

'MR.  COHEN:  Mr.  Chairman,  when  we  first  considered  the  question  of 

this  conference  I said  a solution  when  men  were  tired  was  not  a solution  that 
could  be  relied  upon,  of  serious  difficulties.  It  is  quite  evident  from  what  Mr. 
London  has  said  that  the  gentlemen  on  the  other  side  of  the  table  have  had 
very  little  sleep  or  rest,  and  the  stenographer  assures,  me  that  he  has  not  had 
,more  than  three  hours  sleep  in  the  last  couple  of  nights,  getting  out  our 
minutes.  Now,  there  is  an  intervening  Sunday,  and  Sunday  is  a day  lor 
reflection  and  rest.  We  have  taken  our  position.  We  took  it  before  we  came 
into  this  conference.  Apparently  it  has  not  been  thoroughly  understood; 
apparently  the  basis  of  the  conference  itself  was  not  thoroughly  understood 
by  all  of  the  people  who  are  represented  here.  I think  this  conference  should 
adjourn  until  Monday  morning,  and  I think  on  Monday  morning  it  would  be 
wise  if  Mr.  London  and  the  Chairman  and  myself  wmuld  meet,  say,  at  ten 
o’clock  and  make  one  final  effort  with  our  joint  brains  to  see  if  we  can  devise 
some  scheme,  that,  recognizing  the  principles  we  stand  for,  and  recognizing 
the  principles  that  the  union  stands  for,  will  w’-ork  out  a solution  of  these 
difficulties. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : I suppose  if  it  is  preferable,  Mr.  London,  that  you 

would  not  object  to  meeting  at  an  earlier  hour  Monday? 

MR.  COHEN : I want  to  have  opportunity  for  conferring  with  my  people, 

and  I will  not  have  that  this  evening,  and  I expect  to  have  it  Monday  morning. 

143 


THE  CHAIRMAN : That  seems  to  me  a reasonable  suggestion.  It  is  one. 

to  which  1 would  accomodate  myself. 

MR.  SCHLESSINGER : Please  allow  us  just  a few  moments  for  priv^ate 

conference. 

THE  CHAIRMAN  : Certainly. 

(The  Union  Committee  then  retired.) 

MR.  LONDON : Mr.  Schlessinger  wants  a conference  between  the 

employers  and  the  employees,  without  the  intervention  of  counsel. 

MR.  COHEN  : On  Monday  ? 

MR.  LONDON  : Perhaps  so. 

MR.  COHEN;  And  without  the  Chairman? 

MR.  LONDON ; Perhaps  so.  They  want  a meeting  of  business  men ; that 
is  all. 

MIR.  COHEN : We  will  do  it  if  Mr.  Brandeis  presides,  because  we  have 
got  to  have  somebody  to  preserve  order. 

(The  Union  Committee  returned  to  the  conference  room.) 

MR.  LENNON : Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  it  is  the  wish  of  our  committee 

that  this  conference  do  now  adjourn,  and  that  Mr.  Cohen  and  Mr.  Brandeis  and 
Mr.  London  meet  and  endeavor  to  work  out  a solution  of  this  matter  and  submit 
it  to  both  sides  in  writing,  and  we  believe  that  we  can  do  something  with  it,  and 
then  meet  again. 

MR.  COHEN : I will  agree  to  meet  Mr.  London  Monday  morning,  and  Mr. 

Brandeis,  after  we  have  had  some  rest  at  any  time — say,  ten  o’clock. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Ten  o’clock  and  where?  Here? 

MR.  COHEN ; We  might  as  well  stay  here. 

Whereupon,  the  conference  adjourned  until  Monday  morning,  August  i,  1910, 
at  10  o’clock  A.  M.,  at  the  same  place. 


144 


MINUTES  OF  SESSION,  AUGUST  i,  1910. 


Room  5208,  Metropolitan  Life  Insurance  Building, 


New  York  City,  August  i,  191C. 

Met  pursuant  to  adjournment. 

Mr.  Cohen  submitted  to  Mr.  London  and  to  Mr.  Brandeis  the  following  letter : — 


PROPOSAL  BY  MR.  COHEN  TO  MR.  LONDON. 

New  York,  Aug.  1,  1910. 

Meyer  London,  Esq., 

Counsel  for  the  Cloak  and 
Suit  Makers’  Union. 

Dear  Mr.  London — Our  conference  this  morning  is  fraught  with  such  grave  conse- 
quences that  I believe  such  matters  as  I have  to  submit  should  be  reduced  to  writing. 

I am  prepared  to  join  with  you  in  recommending  to  our  respective  organizations  the 
following  as  their  joint  understanding  of  the  relations  between  the  two,  to  be  agreed  upon: 

The  conference  has  developed  that  the  grievances  complained  of  by  the  Union  can 
be  adjusted.  Practically  every  subject  has  been  agreed  upon,  save  that  of  wages  and  the 
year-round-Saturday  half-holiday  (instead  of  during  the  four  summer  months),  both  of 
which  matters  the  manufacturers  are  willing  to  leave  to  arbitration.  A Joint  Board  of  San- 
itary Control,  composed  of  representatives  of  the  Association  and  the  Union  and  the  public, 
will  be  formed,  whose  business  it  will  be  to  establish  standards  of  sanitary  conditions,  to  in- 
vestigate as  to  the  observance  of  these  conditions,  and  both  parties  to  the  conference  agree 
to  exercise  their  powers  to  the  fullest  to  enforce  these  standards. 

The  manufacturers  realize  that  to  establish  a standard  of  sanitary  conditions,  and 
standards  of  wages  and  hours  throughout  the  industry  it  is  important  that  there  should  be 
complete  co-operation  between  their  Association  and  the  Union.  They  are,  therefore, 
ready  to  strengthen  the  Union,  if  it  be  but  well  organized  and  wisely  led.  If  a complete 
agreement  be  now  reached  upon  these  difficult  and  delicate  matters  it  will  at  once  establish 
confidence  between  the  lead  of  both  sides. 

The  manufacturers  cannot,  of  course,  surrender  the  control  and  management  of  their 
factories  to  the  Union.  In  agreeing  to  this  declaration,  the  Union  indicates  that  it  assents. 
The  manufacturers  cannot  coerce  any  one  into  joining  the  Union;  to  this  the  Union  assents. 
The  manufacturers  cannot  supervise  the  Union’s  business.  The  Union  does  not  ask  that 
they  should.  But  the  manufacturers  can  let  it  be  known  that  they  are  in  sympathy  with  the 
Union,  and  that  as  between  a Union  man  and  a non-union  man  of  equal  ability  to  do  the  job, 
they  will  employ  the  Union  man.  They  cannot  ask  each  man  seeking  a job  to  show  his 
Union  card,  nor  agree  to  collect  the  Union  dues.  On  the  other  hand,  they  can  and  will 
(if  this  declaration  be  accepted)  announce  to  all  of  their  employees  that  they  believe  in  the 
Union  and  that  all  who  desire  its  benefits  should  share  in  its  burdens. 

In  signing  this  declaration,  the  Union  does  not  seek  the  “closed  shop’’  as  it  is  under- 
stood by  the  manufacturers.  They  seek  the  “union  shop”  by  which  they  mean,  a shop 
where  the  majority  of  the  men  employed  are  Union  men,  and  where  the  employer  is  known 
to  be  in  sympathy  with  the  Union.  It  is  not  intended  that  the  employer  shall  not  be  free  to 
pick  and  choose  his  workers.  But  it  is  intended  that  if  in  bad  faith,  he  discriminates  against 
Union  men  or  fails  honestly  to  give  preference  to  Union  men,  then  he  is  not  conducting  a 
“Lffiion  shop,”  both  parties  agree.  It  is  done  experimentally,  for  it  has  never  before  been 
tried  in  this  or  any  other  industry.  But  the  manufacturers  believe  modern  conditions  just- 
ify recognition  of  a well  organized  and  disciplined  union  to  this  extent  and  that  with  good 
faith  and  wise  leadership  on  both  sides,  cooperation  between  the  two  organizations  can 
bring  the  industry  to  a higher  position  than  it  occupies  even  at  present. 

145 


On  the  other  hand,  the  Union  recognizes  that  it  cannot  hope  to  accomplish  this  great 
social  result  unless  it  helps  to  drive  out  of  the  industry  the  sweatshop  “boss,”  the  tenement 
house  worker  and  the  unscrupulous  manufacturer. 

A joint  board  of  arbitration  will  be  established,  upon  which  representatives  of  the 
public  will  be  present.  No  future  strikes  or  lock-outs  will  take  place  until  grievances  are 
first  submitted  to  arbitration.  In  the  saving  of  the  great  waste  thus  eliminated  both  parties 
expect  to  gain  much. 


I am  aware  in  submitting  this  proposed  agreement,  it  is  fraught  with  great  danger  and 
that  if  accepted  by  my  people,  it  goes  “the  limit.” 

On  the  other  hand  I see  nothing  more  that  can  be  asked  except  the  “closed  shop”  which, 
as  you  know,  was  eliminated  before  we  went  into  conference. 

Please  be  good  enough  to  give  me  your  answer  in  writing  by  two  o’clock  today. 

Yours  respectfully, 

(Signed)  Julius  Henry  Cohen, 

Counsel  Manufacturers’  Association. 


Mr.  Brandeis  then  submitted  to  Mr.  Cohen  the  following  letter : — 

New  York,  Aug.  i,  1910. 

Julius  Henry  Cohen,  Esq. 

Dear  Sir : Before  submitting  your  letter  of  this  day  to  Mr.  London,  after  con- 

ferring with  both  you  and  Mr.  London,  I suggest  that  you  modify  the  proposed 
declaration  in  the  following  respect; — 

First.  Let  the  clause  in  the  last  paragraph  on  the  first  page,  beginning  with 
“But  the  manufacturers”  read : “But  the  manufacturers  can  and  will  declare  in 
appropriate  terms  their  sympathy  with  the  Union,  their  desire  to  aid  and  strengthen 
the  Union,  and  their  agreement  that  as  between  Lmion  men  and  non-Union  men 
of  equal  ability  to  do  the  job,  they  will  employ  the  Union  men.” 

Second.  Add  to  the  second  line  of  the  second  page : “And  that  the  preference 
will  be  given  to  Union  men.” 

Third.  Insert  after  the  above : “The  Union  pledges  itself  to  accept  into  its 

membership  every  applicant  of  good  character  on  equal  terms  and  keeps  its  initia- 
tion fees  and  dues  at  a reasonable  rate.” 

Fourth.  Substitute  for  the  second  sentence  of  the  first  paragraph  beginning 
on  page  two,  “The  majority,”  etc.,  the  following:  “They  seek  the  Union  shop, 

by  which  they  mean  a shop  in  which  Union  standards  prevail  and  the  Union  man 
is  entitled  to  the  preference.” 

With  these  changes  I am  prepared  to  join  with  you  in  recommending  the  accept- 
ance of  the  proposal. 

Very  truly  yours, 

(Signed)  LOUIS  D.  BRANDEIS. 


146 


MODIFICATION  BY  MR.  BRANDEIS. 


New  York,  Aug.  1,  1910. 

Julius  Henry  Cohen,  Esq. 

Dear  Sir — Before  submitting  your  letter  of  this  day  to  Mr.  London,  after  conferring 
with  both  you  and  Mr.  London,  I suggest  that  you  modify  the  proposed  declaration  in  the 
following  respect : 

First.  Let  the  clause  in  the  last  paragraph  on  the  first  page,  beginning  with  “but  the 
manufacturers,”  read : “But  the  manufacturers  can  and  will  declare  in  appropriate  terms 
their  sympathy  with  the  union,  their  desire  to  aid  and  strengthen  the  union,  and  their  .agree- 
ment that  as  between  union  men  and  non-union  men  of  equal  ability  to  do  the  job,  they 
will  employ  the  union  men.” 

Second.  Add  to  the  second  line  of  the  second  page : “And  that  the  preference  will 
be  given  to  union  men.” 

Third.  Insert  after  the  above : “The  union  pledges  itself  to  accept  into  its  membership 
every  applicant  of  good  character  on  equal  terms  and  keep  its  initiation  fees  and  dues  at  a 
reasonable  rate.” 

Fourth.  Substitute  for  the  second  sentence  of  the  first  paragraph  beginning  on  page 
2 “the  majority,  etc.,”  the  following:  “They  seek  the  union  shop,  by ’which  means  they  mean 
a shop  in  which  union  standards  prevail  and  the  union  man  is  entitled  to  the  preference.” 

With  these  changes  I am  prepared  to  join  with  you  in  recommending  the  acceptance 
of  the  proposal. 

Very  truly  yours, 

(Signed)  Louis  D.  Brandeis. 

And  Mr.  Cohen  wrote  at  the  foot  thereof : 

Dear  Mr.  Brandeis — I accept  your  modifications. 

(Signed)  Julius  Henry  Cohen. 


147 


EDITORIAL  N.  Y.  TIMES,  AUG.  2.  1910. 


LABORS  “UPLIFT”  MOVEMENT. 

A few  days  ago  the  General  Committee  of  the  Garment  Workers’  strikers  made  a 
formal  appeal  for  public  support  in  these  words:  “We  want  the  sympathy  and  help  of  all 
fair-minded  men  and  women.  Onr  cause  is  that  of  human  uplift,  and  if  the  manufacturers 
want  to  assume  the  position  of  opponents  to  this  cause  we  are  not  responsible.  We  appeal 
our  case  to  the  American  people,  knowing  that  justice  and  right  must  and  shall  prevail.” 
The  interpretation  of  these  fair  words  was  published  yesterday  in  the  foilwing  state- 
ment of  the  result  of  the  negotiations  up  to  date  by  the  President  of  the  strikers’  union: 

The  conference  on  Saturday  ended,  however,  when  we  saw  we  could  come  to  no 
conclusion  on  the  subject  of  unionism.  The  manufacturers  wanted  to  permit  non- 
union men  to  work  if  they  were  competent.  We  asked  how  we  could  keep  up  union 
conditions  in  the  factories  if  there  was  an  element  we  could  not  control. 

In  this  case,  therefore,  the  “uplift”  of  labor  means  the  exclusion  of  all  but  unionists 
from  the  privilege  of  earning  wages.  It  is  impossible  for  any  who  are  human  to  with- 
hold sympathy  for  any  sincere  movement  in  promotion  of  human  uplift,  but  this  kind  of 
uplift  is  another  matter.  In  many  ways  unions  are  good  things  in  the  opinion  of  all,  and  in 
those  respects  they  are  entitled  to  the  respect  and  support  of  all.  No  antagonism  to  trades 
unionism’s  universal  beneficial  activities  is  implied  in  reservation  of  approval  of  whatever 
unions  choose  to  do  in  support  of  their  own  views  of  their  own  interests.  Whenever 
unionists  separate  their  interests  from  the  common  interests  they  challenge  an  opinion 
which  should  be  given  frankly,  without  any  false  sympathy.  In  the  case  in  question  those 
who.  stand  for  the  rights  of  all  to  work  and  wages  are  truer  friends  of  human  uplift  than 
those  who  stand  for  the  enjoyment  of  those  rights  by  themselves  alone.  No  fairness  of 
words  can  make  it  good  for  all  that  nine-tenths  shall  be  excluded  from  the  rights  of 
earning  livelihood  in  the  interests  of  one-tenth.  Our  institutions  are  not  based  upon  the 
rule  of  the  minority. 

If  this  case,  stood  alone  it  might  be  allowed  to  pass  without  comment,  but  similar  cases 
are  so  frequent  that  it  is  necessary  to  take  a staqd  in  defense  of  citizenship  as  against  human 
uplift  of  this  sort.  Much  as  all  would  like  to  see  all  wages  raised,  there  is  one  greater 
boon,  and  that  is  the  equality  of  all  under  the  law.  That  is  the  first  condition  of  human 
uplift,  and  it  is  the  very  condition  which  organized  labor  denies  not  merely  to  capital  but  to 
the  large  majority  of  its  own  class.  There  is  no  need  of  taking  care  of  capital.  It  has  the 
power  to  take  care  of  itself  if  the  law  is  enforced,  and  if  the  law  is  not  enforced  the  results 
will  be  worse  for  others  than  for  capital.  But  there  is  great  need  for  taking  care  of  that 
majority  of  our  citizenship  which  is  not  organized,  and  which  is  not  putting  out  an}^  claims 
for  human  uplift. 

It  was  reported  yesterday  that  “fists,  clubs,  and  stones  were  freely  used  in  a riot  by 
half  a hundred  striking  union  tailors.”  The  objects  of  their  resentment  were  some  work- 
ers who  had  taken  the  strikers’  jobs  after  the  strikers  had  abandoned  them.  The  need  of 
the  “scabs”  was  greater  than  that  of  the  strikers.  With  whom  should  the  public  sym- 
pathize, and  which  of  the  two  parties  is  really  more  in  favor  of  the  human  uplift?  Yester- 
day’s mails  brought  another  illustration  from  the  opposite  edge  of  the  continent.  In  Port- 
land, Ore.,  the  teamsters  on  strike  have  carried  matters  to  such  an  extreme  that  employers 
have  combined  against  them  and  are  educating  the  public  in  the  issues  underlying  the 
open  shop  and  the  recognition  of  the  union.  In  a statement  the  associated  merchant  say: 
“The  strike  as  a strike  is  over.  It  consists  now  merely  in  slugging  non-union  men  on  the 
quiet  and  in  outbreaks  that  keep  the  city  in  a turmoil.  The  Police  Department  is  not  stop- 
ping it  and  is  not  keeping  the  order  that  it  should.”  Within  a month  we  can  catalogue 
assaults,  riots,  dynamitings,  arson,  enough  to  convince  all  except  unionists,  and  even  many 
of  them,  that  the  unions’  plea  that  they  stand  for  human  uplift  is  unworthy  of  acceptance, 
however  strong  may  be  the  desire  to  see  the  cost  of  living  alleviated  to  wage  earners. 


148 


THE  NEW  POST, 

Published  by  the  Cloak  and  Skirt  Makers’  Union. 

Monday,  August  i,  1910. 

AN  OFFICIAL  ANNOUNCEMENT  OE  THE  GENERAL  EXECUTIVE 
BOARD  OF  THE  STRIKERS  CONCERNING  THE  NEGOTIA- 
TIONS WITH  THE  BOSSES’  ASSOCIATION. 

Since  the  talk  began  concerning  the  negotiations  with  the  Bosses’  Associa- 
tion rumors  have  begun  to  circulate  that  the  general  executive  board,  the  body 
which  our  last  convention  authorized  to  call  out  a general  strike,  and  is  obvi- 
ously responsible  for  the  settlement  which  will  be  made,  is  prepared  to  settle 
with  the  bosses,  and  not  on  the  basis  of  an  open  shop,  not  to  recognize  the 
union  and  such  other  baseless  stories.  We  desire  to  declare  openly  that  these 
rumors  can  come  only  from  enemies  and  not  from  friends  of  our  organization, 
from  persons  who  desire  to  see  and  expect  our  defeat. 

No  strike  can  be  successful  where  the  mass  has  no  confidence  in  its  leaders 
or  officers.  The  strikers  may  display  the  greatest  of  self-sacrifice,  may  possess 
the  greatest  endurance,  but  when  they  begin  to  suspect  the  leaders  of  betrayal 
or  dishonesty,  or  when  they  think  that  the  leaders  do  not  understand  their  duty 
and  are  prepared  to  make  a humiliating  settlement,  the  struggle  must  be  lost. 

Therefore,  friends,  the  first  thing  that  we  demand  of  you  is  to  understand 
that  our  last  convention  in  turning  over  to  us  authority  to  call  out  the  strike, 
to  lead  it  and  also  to  settle  it,  because  the  delegates  were  thoroughly  convinced 
that  the  general  executive  board,  which  they  elected  at  the  convention,  is 
entirely  competent  to  carry  out  this  great  task,  and  have  earned  the  confidence 
of  the  organization,  we  desire  to  warn  you  again  that  these  vile  instigations 
come  from  our  enemies  and  not  from  our  friends. 

The  bosses  can  get  no  scabs.  They  cannot  get  their  work  done.  They  will 
have  to  make  a settlement  in  favor  of  the  organization,  but  if  they  s’nould 
succeed  in  ruining  the  reputations  of  the  leaders,  to  plant  the  seed  of  suspicion 
in  the  masses  against  the  officers  and  leaders  of  the  strike,  they  will  have 
accomplished  something  which  neither  the  scabs  nor  the  hired  agents  nor  the 
burns  nor  the  police  can  accomplish. 

The  position  of  a union  in  the  strike  is  now  such  that  it  gives  us  no  cause 
to  either  compromise  or  weaken  our  organization.  This  outcry  comes  from 
dark  sources  and  is  caught  up  by  the  ignorant,  uninformed  new  recruits  who 
for  many  years  stood  outside  of  the  organization.  Persons  to  whom  we  have 
alwaj'S  appealed,  implored  that  they  shall  organize  themselves,  should  recog- 
nize our  union,  should  fight  together  with  us,  now  they  har^e  become  all  at 
once  red-hot  patriots  and  pretend  to  be  better  union  men  and  to  understand 
the  interests  of  the  union  better  than  the  officers  of  our  international  organiza- 
tion who  have  spent  their  whole  lives  in  the  movement  and  in  the  interests 
of  your  organization. 

We  appeal  again  to  you.  Do  not  become  misled  by  betraying  instigations. 
Our  long  service  in  the  trade  union  movement  has  given  us  the  right  to  demand 
your  confidence,  your  devotion.  You  need  to  understand  that  the  general 
executive  board,  together  w^ith  the  general  strike  committee,  knows  its  duty 
and  has  the  right  to  demand  the  fullest  confidence. 

Therefore,  friends,  do  your  duty.  Be  loyal  strikers.  Do  not  shirk  picket 
duty.  Attend  yoi\r  meetings.  Watch  your  shops  and  w^e,  the  responsible 
leaders  of  the  strike,  will  do  our  duty  and  there  will  be  no  doubt  that  the  strike 
will  end  wdth  a glorious  victory  for  the  cloak  and  skirt  makers  of  New  York 
city. 


149 


THE  NATIONAL  EXECUTIVE  BOARD  OF  THE  INTERNATIONAL 
LADIES’  GARMENT  WORKERS’  UNION. 


N.  B. — The  members  of  the  general  executive  committee  will  visit  the  halls 
all  day  to-day  and  make  personal  explanations  concerning  the  conference  and 
the  strike  situation. 

CONCERNING  THE  CONFERENCE. 

Many  irresponsibe  persons  are  novv  creating  an  uproar  among  the  strikers 
that  the  leaders  wish  to  settle  the  strike  so  t’nat  the  boss  may  have  the  right  to 
employ  non-union  labor.  We  desire  to  inform  you  that  any  such  statement  is 
absolutely  untrue.  We  never  conceded  this  and  we  never  shall.  Do  not  forget 
that  the  present  leaders  of  the  strike  are  just  as  good  union  men  as  you  are. 
They  have  had  as  much  experience  in  union  matters  as  anyone  of  you,  and 
especially  you  know  comrades  Rosenberg,  Poliakoff,  Dyche,  Schlesinger  and 
the  others  too  well ; they  have  gone  through  a number  of  general  strikes  and 
have  always  remained  honest  and  true  to  the  interests  of  the  working  man,  and 
they  will  remain  honest  and  true  to  the  interests  of  the  working  man  in  the 
future.  Be  calm.  Don’t  agitate  yourselves.  No  one  will  sell  you  out;  use  your 
activities  in  picketing  your  shops  and  in  taking  care  of  your  shop  interests. 

THE  CONFERENCE  IS  END|ED. 

After  conferring  for  three  days  with  a committee  of  the  J\Ianufacturers’ 
Association  the  conference  was  finally  broken  oft’,  not  only  because  the  bosses 
v/ill  not  grant  union  shops,  but  because  they  have  practically  conceded  noth- 
ing"; not  because  they  feel  that  they  are  strong,  for  they  were  compelled  to 
admit  that  their  entire  organization  consists  of  only  seventy-five  members  and 
there  are  1,500  manufacturers  in  New  York,  but  the  bosses  think  that  we  are 
lemons  and  that  they  will  be  able  to  sc|ueeze  us  and  that  we  are  not.  We  will 
not  recede  from  out  demands. 

WHAT  WE  DEMAND  FROM  THE  BOSSES. 

We  demand  that  the  bosses  shall  employ  only  union  labor  in  all  departments  of 
cloaks  and  skirts. 

We  demand  an  eight-hour  working  day  and  that  either  on  Saturday  or  Sun- 
day only  one-half  day  of  labor. 

The  cutters  shall  receive  $26  a week. 

Skirt  cutters  not  less  than  $22  a week. 

Jacket  pressers,  $22  a week. 

Jacket  under  pressers,  $18  a week. 

Skirt  pressers,  $20  a week. 

Skirt  under  pressers,  $16  a Week. 

Sample  tailors,  $24  a week. 

Buttonhole  makers,  $1.20  100  holes. 

The  abolition  of  the  inside  contracting  system. 

The  bosses  must  give  free  machines  and  electric  power,  needles  and  straps. 

Wages  must  be  paid  only  in  cash. 

No  workman  may  take  work  home. 

Prices  of  piece  work  must  be  so  arranged  that  in  eight  hours  it  shall  be  pos- 
sible to  earn  $6  a day. 


150 


NOW  WE  WILL  SEE  WHAT  THE  BOSSES  WANT  TO  GIVE  US. 


The  union  shop  they  will  not  concede.  They  will  install  electric  power  after 
this  season.  They  will  abolish  the  contract  system  only  when  our  union  will 
bind  itself  to  install  the  same  system  in  other  cities. 

Prices  of  piece  work  shall  be  figured  at  $3.50  a day. 

Sample  tailors,  $19  a week;  jacket  pressers,  $20  a week;  under  pressers,  $16 
a week;  piece  pressers,  $10  a week;  jacket  cutters,  $25  a week;  skirt  cutters,  $20 
a week;  canvas  cutters,  $12  a week  and  hours  of  labor  shall  be  fifty-three. 

As  you  can  see  we  cannot  accept  such  a settlement,  and  we  assure  you  that 
such  a settlement  will  never  be  made.  Be  calm.  * Do  your  work  as  heretofore 
and  your  strike  will  be  won. 

With  fraternal  greetings. 

(Signed)  A.  ROSENBERG, 

President  I.  L.  G.  W.  U. 


151 


From  the  New  York  Times,  Friday,  August  5,  1910. 


“UNION  SHOP.” 

It  is  a pity  that  the  striking  garment  makers  did  not  see  their  way  to  accept 
the  proposal  of  the  employers.  In  the  opinion  of  Mr.  Brandeis,  the  investigator 
in  the  Ballinger  ca,se,  a friend  of  the  laboring  man,  a settler  of  strikes,  and  chair- 
man of  the  conference  between  the  disputants,  “the  strikers  would  not  listen  to 
reason.”  The  basis  of  this  statement  was  that  the  employers  had  made  con- 
cessions of  almost  everything  regarding  conditions  of  employment,  and  had  agreed 
to  accept  arbitration  of  disputed  remnants  of  controversy,  except  one.  They  in- 
sisted that  they  must  keep  control  of  their  own  shops,  but  declared  their  willing- 
ness to  operate  them  as  union  shops. 

“Union  shop”  is  a new  term  in  labor  parlance,  and  is  worth  understanding, 
for  it  differs  from  both  the  “closed  shop”  and  the  “open  shop.”  The  proposal 
was  to  admit  any  one  to  employment,  but  to  prefer  unionists.  The  employers  were 
willing  to  employ  a majority  of  unionists,  to  make  formal  expression  of  sympathy 
with  the  union,  and  to  co-operate  with  the  union  for  the  improvement  of  all  con- 
ditions of  employment.  In  this  way  alone  is  it  possible  to  drive  out  of  the  trade 
the  unfair  competition  of  the  sweatshop  boss,  the  tenement  workers,  and  unscru- 
pulous employers.  In  no  other  way  could  standards  of  sanitation  and  payment 
be  imposed  by  obligation  to  refer  differences  to  arbitration.  This  basis  of  peace 
is  made  impracticable  by  insistence  upon  the  closed  shop  in  all  its  rigor. 

To  reject  is  the  right  of  the  unionists,  but  it  bars  further  appeal  to  public 
sympathy.  The  good  faith  of  the  employers  is  established. 


152 


To  THE  Members  of  The  Cloak^  Suit  and 
Skirt  Manufacturers'  Protective 
Association. 

Gentlemen — The  New  York  Evening  Globe  has  applied  to  the  Executive  Board  of  the 
Association  for  permission  to  visit  the  factories  of  the  members  of  the  Association. 

At  a meeting  of  the  Executive  Committee  held  this  day  it  was  determined  that  the  shop 
of  any  members  of  the  Association  should  be  open  to  any  representative  of  the  press  or  to 


any  authorized  person  desiring  to  visit  the 

You  will  confer  a favor  on  the  Executive 
of  the  Evening  Globe  or  any  other  newspaper 


shops  for  the  purpose  of  inspection. 

Committee  if  you  will  permit  a representative 
representative  to  visit  your  factory. 

Very  truly  yours, 

(Signed)  Executive  Committee. 


153 


From  the  GLOBE  AND  COMMERCIAL  ADVERTISER,  NEW  YORK,  JULY  19,  1910 


NO  SWEAT  SHOPS  THESE.  WHERE  CLOAKMAKERS  TOIL 

Big  Factories  and  Many  of  the  Smaller  Ones  Are,  in  Reality,  Models  in  Sanitation  and  Provision 
for  Comfort  of  Workers.  Side  of  the  Picture  But  Little  Known.  Impartial  Inspection  of 
Big  Workshops  Shows  That  an  Earnest,  Honest  Effort  is  Made  to  Remove  Evils  of  Which 
Complaint  Has  Been  Made. 


By  VIRGINIA  TYLER  HUDSON. 


“If  you  are  a good  housekeeper  and  keep  your  kitchen  clean,  can  you  help  it  if  your 
neighbor  has  flies  in  hers?” 

Such  was  the  plaintive  query  of  A.  Beller,  one  of  the  “big  men”  of  the  cloak  and  suit 
making  trade  which  is  today,  and  for  a week  or  so  has  been,  wrestling  with  a strike  that 
bids  fair  to  thoroughly  disorganize  one  of  the  city’s  biggest  industrial  fields  for  some  time 
to  come.  Their  one  hope  is  a Moses  to  lead  them  out  of  the  wilderness  of  troubles  into 
which  certain  labor  union  leaders  have  led  and  promptly  lost  them. 

Then  goes  on  Mr.  Beller,  still  plaintively : 

“If  your  upstairs  girls  and  your  cook  and  maids  should  leave  because  you  can’t  or  don’t 
keep  the  flies  out  of  your  neighbor’s  kitchen,  would  you  like  it?” 

In  an  epigrammatic  way,  Mr.  Beller  voices  the  woes  of  the  great  body  of  cloak,  suit 
and  skirt  manufacturers,  brings  the  situation  more  clearly  home  to  the  disinterested  than  all 
the  technical  talk  dispensed  by  the  executive  in  their  organized  body  who  are  endeavoring, 
late,  to  show  that  there  are  two  sides  to  the  story  of  the  present  strike. 

Through  the  press  and  through  untiring  speakers  on  street  corners  and  in  halls,  the 
public  have  been  made  thoroughly  conversant  with  the  strikers’  side  of  the  story.  It  has  been 
their  endeavor  to  show  that  the  striking  men  are  on  the  borderland  of  an  industrial  millen- 
nium that  is  being  brought  about  by  their  own  arbitrary  tactics,  when  “bosses”  shall  be  a 
thing  unheard,  unknown,  and  the  man  who  works  for  wage,  will  be  almighty  through  the 
power  of  the  monarchy  of  union  he  will  set  up. 

But  of  the  other  side — of  the  viewpoint  of  the  manufacturer  and  employer  whom  it 
has  evidently  never  occurred  to  the  strikers  to  believe  may  have  any  rights,  save  those  union 
accredited  rights  of  oppression — nothing  practically  has  been  heard.  The  result  has  been 
to  leave  the  general  public  in  ignorance  of  the  conditions  that  prevail  in  all  shops  except  an 
occasional  discredited  one,  and  to  allow  them  to  harbor  the  idea  that  the  present  strike  was 
brought  about  because  of  unbearable  sanitary  conditions  existing,  for  underpaid  wages  for 
work  done,  and  general  oppression  on  the  part  of  employers  toward  employees. 

THE  OTHER  SIDE. 

Fair  play — a desire  to  “give  the  devil  his  due,”  alone,  has  prompted  The  Globe  to  find 
out  more  about  this  particular  strike  from  the  neglected  viewpoint  of  the  manufacturers  them- 
selves. I have  been  among  them  unheralded,  unexpected,  to  “find  out  thing”  for  myself,  or, 
rather,  for  The  Globe  readers. 

Previous  experience  has  taught  me  that  there  would  probably  be  a cry  that  only  accept- 
able places  had  been  visited  were  the  selection  of  them  left  to  the  association’s  executives, 
so  I began  another  way.  Racegoers  have  heard  of  the  method  of  selection  used  before — 
but  it  is  efficacious.  I simply  took  a long  typewritten  list  of  cloak,  suit  and  skirt  manu- 
facturers’ names,  held  it  in  front  of  me,  closed  my  eyes,  and  poked  holes  in  it  with  a per- 
fectly good  hatpin.  So  were  the  choices  of  places  for  investigation  made — and  here  they  are. 

Perhaps  it  was  fortunate  for  showing  the  uninitiated  what  a really  model  cloak  and  suit 
factory  is  that  one  of  the  first  places  so  selected  at  random  was  the  house  of  A.  Beller  & 
Co.,  of  37  West  26th  street. 


154 


If  conditions  in  any  line  of  business  are  really  ideal,  they  are  there.  From  the  private 
office  of  Mr.  Seller  himself,  with  its  framed  quotations  from  Ruskin  on  the  wall,  through  the 
three  floors  of  cutting  rooms,  model  rooms,  sewing  rooms,  down  to  the  waste  chute,  nothing 
is  missing  for  creature  comfort. 

The  workrooms  on  two  of  the  floors  occupy  the  entire  floor  space  of  the  building,  and 
windows  are  at  intervals  of  a few  inches  in  all  four  walls.  It  is  high  up  above  the  roar 
of  the  city,  and  as  we  stepped  into  the  machine  room  a grateful  breeze  blew  in  upon  me — 
the  first  I,  at  least,  had  encountered  in  a heat-ridden  day. 

“Why,  this  is  fine  and  cool !”  I exclaimed,  but  Mr.  Seller,  my  guide,  merely  smiled. 

“Well,  we  don’t  wait  for  breezes  for  circulation,”  he  announced,  pointing  to  a queer 
sort  of  an  arrangement  on  the  ceiling  that  reminded  me  of  an  old-fashioned  shoot  the  chutes 
fire  escape.  “There  is  our  cold-air  ventilator — the  same  as  they  have  in  the  theaters.”  And, 
saying  which,  he  led  me  past  long  rows  of  idle  sewing  machines,  past  the  little  elevator  for 
the  private  use  of  employees  bringing  goods  or  bundles  from  one  floor  to  another,  past  the 
tiled  dressing  rooms  and  Altered  water  plant,  to  the  top  floor  of  the  building.  This  is  given 
over  entirely  to  the  comfort  of  the  employees.  Long  rows  of  immaculately  clean  white  oil- 
cloth-covered tables  were  before  each  window  from  which  the  Hudson  and  the  Palisades 
could  be  seen,  and  ships  riding  idly  at  anchor.  Three  or  four  partitions  divided  the  tables, 
and  I looked  inquiringly  at  my  guide. 

“Ah,  you  notice  it?”  he  asked.  “Well,  this  section  is  for  the  Americans,”  indicating, 
“this  for  the  Jews,  this  for  the  Italians,  this  for  the  French,  and  these  marble-topped  tables 
over  here  are  for  the  forewomen  and  foremen.” 

At  the  end  of  the  room  is  a counter,  ice  boxes,  coffee  urns,  and  necessaries  for  a caterer. 
I found  by  inquiring  of  him  that  the  employees  of  the  firm  could  get  double-sized  sand- 
wiches there  for  5 cents,  a pot  of  coffee  or  tea  for  3,  and  other  food  for  as  comparatively 
small  sums. 

MANY  WOULD  RETURN. 

“Well,  if  things  are  as  they  seem  to  me,”  I remarked,  “don’t  your  people  want  to  come 
back  to  work?” 

“There  are  a lot  of  them  who  would  gladly,”  answered  Mr.  Seller,  “but  we  don’t  care 
to  have  them  exposed  to  injury  from  a lot  of  wild-eyed  fanatics.  There  is  plenty  of  time 
We  are  just  going  to  wait  a week  or  so.  Why,  we  haven’t  had  a rest  in  thirty-two  years,  and 
the  machines  need  a vacation.  Any  way,  our  customers  understand  and-  are  willing  to  wait 
for  their  orders.” 

As  he  spoke  we  were  passing  through  the  finishing  room,  where  a tailor  and  two  or 
three  women  were  busy  at  work  putting  the  finishing  touches  on  some  garments. 

“Still,  you  have  some  people  at  work,”  I noticed,  “and  I have  seen  none  an}rwhere  else.” 

“Aw,  you  couldn’t  drive  some  of  them  away,”  was  his  comment.  “They  think  this  is 
a free  country  and  are  going  to  work  if  they  want  to.  Ain’t  that  so,  Abe?”  he  asked  the 
man,  who  only  looked  up  a minute,  shrugged  his  shoulders  scornfully  with  a murmured 
something  about  “anarchists,”  and  went  on  with  his  work. 

“Well,  anyway,  I guess  I’ll  go  along  and  take  a chance  with  ’em  for  awhile,”  caustically 
remarked  one  of  the  women,  a young  American,  as  we  filed  past. 

“Now,”  announced  Mr.  Beller,  triumphantly,  “are  there  any  flies  in  our  kitchen?”  I 
was  compelled  to  admit  that  his  screens  were  excellent,  but  asked  about  some  of  the  other 
places  which  have,  according  to  the  union  leaders,  brought  about  the  trouble. 

“There  isn’t  a single  manufacturer  who  wouldn’t  like  to  see  such  places  cleaned  up,  but 
he  don’t  want  his  own  business  disrupted  to  do  it.  Let  every  one  attend  to  keeping  things 
right  in  his  own  place,  say  I,  and  things  will  be  a lot  better.  If  there  is  a grievance  in  one 
place  let  it  be  adjusted  there.  This  other  method  of  a general  strike  is  just  like  having  the 
American  soldiers  rise  up  in  battle  against  America  because  Russia  is  rotten !” 


THE  WAGES  PAID. 


The  examination  of  the  books  of  A.  Beller  & Co.  showed  the  same  thing  1 found  in 
practically  every  place  visited — that  tailors,  boss  tailors,  who  work  by  the  week,  get  from 
$30  to  $40;  cutters,  fitters,  and  other  piece  workers  get  from  $15  to  $35,  the  average  being 
$25  a week,  and  that  occasionally  an  unusually  good  man  commands  as  high  as  $60  a week 
or  over. 

It  has  been  one  of  the  complaints  of  the  union  people  that  these  figures  do  not  represent 
the  earnings  of  one  man  or  woman,  but  rather  that  the  person  whose  name  is  on  the  book 
is  a sub-contractor  who,  aside  from  the  firm,  pays  the  people  he  employs  and  brings  into 
the  factories  to  work.  This,  however,  is  generally  denied,  and  it  is  claimed  if  such  a sys- 
tem exists  now  at  all  it  is  with  the  smaller  firms  and  not  with  any  reputable  houses. 

“The  strange  thing  to  me,”  said  Mr.  A.  E.  Lefcourt,  of  27  West  24th  street,  president 
of  the  Cloak,  Suit  and  Skirt  Manufacturers’  Protective  Association,  “is  that  the  strikers  who 
have  been  demanding  the  doing  away  of  contract  work  are  doing  all  they  can  to  subject 
themselves  and  us  to  oppression  of  the  worst  kind.  What  they  really  demand  is  that  all 
contract  work  must  be  done  away  with  except  with  that  one  big  contractor,  the  union. 

“The  workers  are  not  so  anxious  to  do  away  with  the  contract  system  as  the  manu- 
facturers, but  the  latter  are  trying  to  eliminate  it  in  a rational  and  intelligent  manner. 
They  are  trying  every  way  to  get  the  result  from  the  workers  first  hand  wherever  it 
is  possible,  but  the  agitators  of  the  strike  want  it  all  done  in  a minute,  irrespective 
of  what  it  may  mean  to  invested  capital.  Progress  will  settle  this  matter  very  fast, 
particularly  in  our  business.” 

Mr.  Lefcourt’s  place  of  business,  like  the  one  already  described,  is  one  in  a tower- 
ing modern  building,  reached  by  swift-moving  elevators,  with  roomy  quarters,  elec- 
trically cooled  in  summer,  steam  heated  in  winter,  so  light  that  the  added  light  of  an 
electric  bulb  or  so  would  be  a mere  flicker  in  the  daylight.  Like  all  the  others  visited, 
it  is  a far  cry  from  the  factory  of  a dozen  years  or  so  ago,  and  the  changes  have  been 
effected  without  union  interference. 

IN  SMALLER  FACTORIES. 

Further  down  town  to  some  of  the  smaller  factories,  the  hatpin  points  led  me  to 
the  places  of  business  of  A.  Fein  & Son  of  33  West  Seventeenth  street  and  Katz  & 
Fishel  of  18  West  Eighteenth  street.  Both  of  these  occupy  but  a single  floor — factory, 
show  rooms,  and  offices  included.  A.  Fein  & Son  employ  but  a few  people,  and  there 
is  accordingly  not  the  vast  and  elaborate  arrangement  for  the  convenience  of  employees 
found  in  bigger  establishments.  But  there  is  not  a machine  which  is  not  in  front  of  a 
window  opening  on  a street,  the  sanitary  conditions  are  good,  and  a big  cutting  table  is 
placed  in  a light  space  at  one  end  of  the  room,  on  which  the  employees  may  eat  their 
luncheon. 

“As  far  as  pay  goes,”  said  Mr.  Fein,  “we  have  never  had  any  arguments  that  we 
could  not  settle  satisfactorily  ourselves.  If  a man  thinks  he  is  not  getting  enough  for 
certain  kinds  of  work,  he  simply  comes  to  me  and  says  so,  and  gets  what  he  wants  if 
it  is  at  all  possible.” 

The  clock  hanging  motionless,  allowed  to  run  down,  in  the  factory  of  Katz  & 
Fishel,  spoke  eloquently  of  the  stopping  of  a big  business — a lull  in  one  of  the  city’s  big 
industries — whose  full  import  and  consequences  have  not  impressed  themselves  as  they 
merit.  Probably,  though  it  has  not  occurred  to  a careless  public  that,  for  each  week 
the  strikers  remain  out,  there  is  a million  and  a half  dollars  out  of  circulation. 

Mr.  Fishel  undoubtedly  realizes  the  importance  of  the  matter,  however,  for  it  was 
with  a look  of  sadness  that  he  gazed  down  his  rows  of  silent  machines  with  the  sun- 
light falling  upon  them  through  the  closed  windows.  He  showed  me  all  through  the 
place,  though,  even  the  big  zinc-lined  box  for  waste,  the  lockers  and  toilet  arrange- 
ments, and  then  he  said,  mournfully  shaking  his  head : 

156 


“I  don’t  know  why  they  did  it.  We’ve  tried  to  do  all  we  could — we’re  willing  to 
do  anything  they  ask,  too — anything  but  let  their  walking  delegate  come  in  here  and 
tell  us  how  to  run  our  business.” 

That  was  the  constant  cry  of  them  all — to  be  allowed  to  be  their  own  masters  and 
“boss”  of  their  own  affairs.  It  is  the  snag  against  which  the  union  officials  will  stick 
when  they  try  to  come  to  terms,  for  never  will  the  manufacturers  give  up  their  prized 
possession  of  power,  even  should  there  come  a time  when  that  would  be  their  only 
possession. 

This  I feel  safe  in  predicting  in  all  good  conscience.  Nor  is  it  said  inadvisedly,  but 
after  days  of  plodding  from  one  factory  to  another,  of  interviewing  one  maker  of  gar- 
ments after  another,  which  has  taught  me  a lesson  in  solidarity  that  unions  may  well 
envy.  And  not  without  reason  have  even  the  most  pliable  decided  to  stand  by  their 
guns. 

PREPARED  TO  HOLD  OUT. 

“Never  has  there  been  a time  when  the  manufacturers  were  not  in  a position  to  hold 
out  against  unjust  demands,”  Max  Schwartz,  of  85  Fifth  avenue,  told  me  when  he 
showed  me  about  his  big  factory,  with  all  its  modern  conveniences  and  well  laid  ar- 
rangements for  the  bodily  comfort  and  health  of  the  hundreds  he  employs. 

“In  the  first  place  we  are  in  a position  to  hold  off  in  our  orders  for  some  time  to 
come.  Then  there  are  a hundred  or  so  alone  of  us  of  the  27,000  or  more  manufac- 
turers in  the  city  who  are  in  a position  to  command  millions  of  dollars.  So  we  have 
formed  the  Protective  Association,  where  each  man  who  joins  is  assessed  from  $25  a 
year  up,  according  to  his  working  capital,  and  that  money  is  to  go  to  tide  over  the 
smaller  manufacturer,  to  whom  the  loss  of  a single  contract  might  mean  ruin.  Has  it 
occurred  to  you  to  ask  if  the  strike  instigators  will  be  able  to  tide  over  the  misguided 
men  and  women  they  have  persuaded  to  strike?” 

L.  E.  Rosenful,  of  105  Fifth  avenue,  one  of  the  biggest  men  in  the  business,  em- 
ploys more  than  600  people  to  make  the  garments  he  furnishes  to  three  firms  alone.  It 
takes  three  floors  to  accommodate  these  people,  exclusive  of  the  offices.  Still,  for  all 
the  great  number,  there  is  no  suspicion  of  crowded  condition.  Every  machine  is  in  a 
cool  place  beside  an  outside  window,  the  men  and  women  have  toilet  arrangements  far 
separated,  more  resembling  the  retiring  rooms  of  hotels  than  business  houses.  Elevators 
on  every  side  of  the  room  make  for  comfort,  and,  as  in  hundreds  of  other  like  places, 
there  is  a caterer  who  serves  the  employees  in  a big,  light  lunch  room. 

“My  men  didn’t  want  to  quit — I know  it,”  said  Mr.  Rosenthal.  “Why,  many  of 
them  are  begging  me  to  get  a place  outside  somewhere  for  them  to  work.  Some  of 
my  people  have  been  with  me  between  twelve  and  fifteen  years,  and  can  make  $60  in 
busy  times,  so  I know  they  are  being  kept  away  through  no  grievance  of  their  own.” 

It  was  young  Mr.  Rubin,  though  of  the  firm  of  Rubin  Bros.,  of  18  West  18th  street, 
who  told  me  the  real  reason  there  are  so  many  empty  factories  and  practically  no  men 
at  work  in  the  cloak  and  suit  business.  It  may  have  been,  too,  that  in  speaking  Mr. 
Rubin  was  giving  voice  to  his  own  inclinations  not  to  see  a living  creature  injured 
through  his  fault  (didn’t  I hear  him  call  to  a watchman  to  take  a starving,  squalling 
cat  that  was  marooned  in  the  empty  factory  down  stairs  and  feed  it?),  still  he  voiced 
the  sentiments  of  many  . 

“We  don’t  want  any  one  to  come  out  of  this  strike  injured  for  life,  maybe,  just 
because  they  wanted  to  work,  and  we  allowed  them  to  work  for  us.  No,  sir — er,  no, 
ma’am,  I mean.  We’re  going  to  wait  awhile.” 

A WAITING  POLICY. 

That’s  their  policy,  now,  it  would  seem — to  “wait  a while.”  On  some  it  falls  heavier 
than  others : on  the  firms  who  are  just  starting  in  business,  as,  for  instance,  the  firm  of 
Brous,  Nevins  & Co.,  of  585  Broadway.  Still,  even  they  need  not  worry.  It  has  only 
cost  them  $25  to  be  assured  that  their  business  will  be  protected. 


To  others  the  delay  is  not  serious.  To  S.  L.  Silver,  of  8 East  32nd  street,  say, 
who  has  just  moved  there  from  87  Fifth  avenue.  It  is  merely  giving  him  more  oppor- 
tunity to  have  his  inlaid  woodwork  finished,  to  have  the  tessellated  floors  in  his  lunch 
rooms,  dressing  rooms,  and  retiring  rooms  more  brightly  scoured  and  to  finish  installing 
his  hot  and  cold  air  plant  which  is  to  add  comfort  to  his  employees. 

Truly,  after  an  examination  of  the  working  plans  of  S.  L.  Silver,  it  seems  a quixotic 
adherent  of  unionism  as  a religion  merely  who  could  leave  his  work  there.  For  years  it 
has  been  the  custom  of  this  firm  to  have  semi-yearly  conferences  between  the  members 
of  the  firm  and  the  duly  elected  delegates  from  the  employed.  Then  the  wage  scale 
was  settled  to  the  satisfaction  of  all  concerned. 

“I  don’t  want  to  make  my  money  out  of  the  people  who  work  for  me,”  warmly  de- 
clared Mr.  Silver,  as  one  accused.  Then  he  added,  slyly: 

“If  I need  a little  more  I just  add  a dollar  or  two  to  the  price  of  the  garment,  and 
let  the  purchaser  make  my  money.” 

From  an  outside  source  I heard  another  thing  or  two  about  how  Mr.  Silver  treats 
his  employees.  One  case  in  point  is  that  of  Frank  Cassidy,  a tailor.  For  thirteen  weeks 
Cassidy  was  in  the  hospital,  only  recently  being  allowed  to  leave,  and  during  all 
that  time  his  $35  a week,  which  he  earned  when  working  for  Silver,  came  promptly  to 
the  hospital  each  week,  besides  many  luxuries  sent  by  the  firm.  I could  not  help  won- 
dering if  Cassidy,  were  he  askedj  would  exchange  that  for  the  dollar  a week  (maybe) 
that  the  unions  dole  out  to  starving  strikers. 

It  would  be  impossible  to  go  into  details  of  the  conditions  found  in  all  the  fac- 
tories that  the  hatpin  marked.  It  is  sufficient  to  say  that  these  mentioned  are  not  out 
of  the  ordinary.  Some  larger,  some  smaller,  all  doing  their  best  to  be  just  as  near  the 
model  set  by  A.  Seller  and  hundreds  of  others  as  they  possibly  can. 

If  you  don’t  believe  it  suppose  you  drop  in  unexpectedly  on  a number  of  them — any 
number — and  find  out.  I’ll  give  you  the  names  of  the  hatpin-marked  ones:  Charles 

Heineman,  of  28  West  27th  street;  Wald  & Fein,  of  122  West  15th  street;  Eckstein  & 
Butler,  of  18  West  20th  street;  Schaff  & Mandel,  of  32  West  18th  street;  L.  B.  Vogel, 
of  27  West  20th  street;  Charles  Sturmen,  of  33  West  35th  street;  L.  A.  Mendelson, 
of  28  West  27th  street;  Max  Solomon,  of  11  West  Nineteenth  street;  Gettler  & Murray, 
of  45  West  25th  street;  the  Empire  Cloak  and  Suit  Company,  of  29  West  24th 
street,  and  R.  Sadowsky,  of  801  Broadway. 

But  there  are  thousands  of  others — all  willing  that  you  should  see  and  should 
know  whether  or  not  they  have  flies  in  their  kitchens  and  so  should  lose  their  hired  girls. 


158 


Date  Due 


